1. The present petition is directed against a judgment dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, dismissing the leave to defend application of the petitioner/tenant in an eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlady under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in respect of one room with verandah in front of the said room situated on the ground floor of property bearing No.10258, Gali Ambale Wali, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

2. The respondent filed an eviction petition in respect of the tenanted premises in occupation of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirement. She submitted that her grandmother, Smt. Javitri Devi (mother of her deceased father) was the owner of the entire property and during her lifetime, had executed a Will dated 5.9.1972 bequeathing the suit property in her favour. Smt. Javitri Devi expired on 12.9.1972 and upon her demise, the respondent became the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. It was further stated that earlier, the father of the respondent had been looking after the said property on her behalf.

3. The respondent averred in the eviction petition that in the year 1969, Smt. Javitri Devi had let out the tenanted premises to Sh. Murari Lal. Sh. Murari Lal was staying in the tenanted premises with his two brothers, namely, Sh. Jalim Singh and Sh. Yad Ram. The son of Sh. Jalim Singh shifted to another accommodation during the life of his father whereas Sh. Yad Ram, his son and daughter-in-law, Smt. Bhagwati (petitioner herein) remained with Sh. Murari Lal in the tenanted premises. Sh. Murari Lal is stated to have died issueless and upon his demise, at the request of the petitioner, the father of the respondent accepted her as a tenant in place of Sh. Murari Lal, in respect of the tenanted premises and the rent @ Rs.60/- is stated to have been paid by the petitioner.

4. The respondent stated that she required the tenanted premises for her residence as also for her family members and that she had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available with her. It was further stated that the respondent?s family consists of herself, her husband and her two sons aged 17 years and 9 years respectively. While the first floor and second floor of the suit premises is occupied by the brothers and the mother of the respondent, she expressed her desire to shift to the ground floor occupied by the petitioner so as to live close to her near and dear ones. She stated that she needs one bedroom for herself and her husband and two rooms for her two sons, apart from one drawing room, one guest room and a pooja room.

5. In the leave to defend application, the petitioner raised various grounds to oppose the eviction petition. She disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. She also disputed the ownership of the respondent, in respect of the tenanted premises. She claimed that as the respondent not only requires the suit premises for her residential purposes, but also for residential-cum-commercial purpose, the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The purpose of letting and the bona fide need of the respondent were also disputed by the petitioner.

6. The learned Additional Rent Controller considered the pleadings and the documents filed by both the parties and arrived at the conclusion that the respondent/landlady was the owner of the suit premises, and there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was observed that the purpose of letting was no longer in dispute, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satyawati Sharma & Anr. Vs. UOI reported as 148(2008) DLT 705(SC).The claim of the petitioner that the respondent had her own property at Vishnu Garden was turned down on the ground that the petitioner failed to substantiate the said contention. The bona fide need of the respondent was examined and found to