MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 2nd August, 2014 whereby leave to defend was granted to the Respondent Nannu Ram in an eviction petition filed by the Petitioner Smt. Lado under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Act, 1958 (in short ‘the DRC Act’), the Petitioner prefers the present petition.

2. In the eviction petition Smt. Lado stated that she was the owner and landlord of Shop measuring 8’ x 12’ situated in property bearing No.G-85, Aruna Nagar, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi. The suit property originally belonged to her mother-in-law Smt. Parvati who executed a Will dated 30th July, 2008 whereby she bequeathed the entire ground floor and two shops on the ground floor adjacent to the narrow gali and the entire floor which was yet to be constructed to Lado. The Will specifically stated that Yaad Ram, husband of Smt. Lado was addicted to liquor and was not looking after the family and thus to take care of her daughter-in-law and the grand children, Parvati was bequeathing the property on her daughter-in-law. Similarly, the other two shops on the first floor and the second floor of the suit property was bequeathed by Parvati to her younger daughter-in-law Smt. Kamlesh. Smt.Parvati expired on 27th March, 2009 and thus by virtue of the ‘Will’ Smt. Lado became the sole and absolute owner of the tenanted premises. During the lifetime of Parvati Devi, the tenanted premises had been let out to Nannu Ram, the Respondent herein at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- including electricity charges. However, he neither paid nor tendered any rent to Parvati Devi and thus she issued a legal notice dated 8th August, 2002 to Nannu Ram which was replied back. After a further legal notice dated 7th August, 2005 a petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act was filed by Parvati Devi which is still pending adjudication. After the death of Smt. Parvati Devi, Smt. Lado has been impleaded as the Petitioner in the petition under Section 14(1)(a) DRC Act.

3. In the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act which is the subject matter of present petition, it was stated that Smt. Lado has two sons namely Mukesh and Rajinder. The elder son of Smt. Lado Mukesh was aged 30 years and the younger son Rajinder was aged about 20 years. Since the husband of Smt. Lado was not in position to work properly, Mukesh was working as a painter with a contractor however, he wants to open a shop of paint material and Smt. Lado also wants to assist her son in the said work by sitting in the said shop. She has got no other reasonably suitable accommodation available for running the said business. Along with the tenanted premises there is another small shop which was occupied by other tenant for which eviction petition was being filed by Smt. Lado as the same was required for opening a shop for the younger son. The Petitioner also placed on record the Rent Agreement between Parvati Devi and Nannu Ram and the site plan of the suit property along with the copies of the Will and the Death Certificate of Smt. Parvati Devi.

4. In the leave to defend application Nannu Ram claimed that Smt.Lado was not the owner of the property and thus the petition was not maintainable and that Yaad Ram, the husband of Smt. Lado was the landlord qua Nannu Ram. The elder son of Smt. Lado was employed with a hospital near Chirag Delhi, New Delhi and getting handsome salary and was not interested opening the shop or doing any business. Smt. Lado was 50 years of age and being house lady was not capable to do any business. Further the younger son was studying in ITI and was not also capable to commence the business. It is stated that Smt. Lado had kept one shop locked since last many years wherein no business was commenced and the petition was mala fide to raise the rent of the tenanted premises. The suit property is a three storied and the upper floor is the residential portion having four tenants and on the ground floor there are three tenants.

5. In the reply to leave to defend applica