The main legal point established is that a married daughter can be considered dependent for accommodation and the availability of suitable, alternate accommodation should be assessed in the hands of the petitioner, not the daughters' husbands.

JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J. - By way of the present petition filed under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (''DRC Act'', for short), the petitioner, who is the owner/landlady of the Ground Floor of property bearing No.16/1667 Abdul Rehman Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (''subject premises'', for short) impugns order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Pilot Court, CCJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case bearing No.E-795/17 titled Smt. Vidyawati vs. Shri Gautam Mahajan & Ors. By order dated 15.05.2018 the learned ARC has been pleased to allow the respondents'' application under section 25B (8) of the DRC Act and has thereby granted to the respondents leave-to-defend the eviction petition filed by the petitioner.

Petitioner''s contentions :

2. A conspectus of the case as argued by Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is the following:

(i) The subject premises was let-out by the predecessorin-interest of the petitioner, Rao Jaswant Singh, to the respondents vid agreement dated 27.02.1975 at a monthly rent of Rs.660/- per month excluding all other charges;

(ii) The subject premises was inherited by the petitioner and her four sisters as legal heirs of their brother Rao Jaswant Singh, who passed away on 26.02.1997. Thereupon, three of the petitioner''s sisters executed release deeds and the fourth sister executed a sale deed, all dated 27.04.2016, in respect of the subject premises in favour of the petitioner; and thereby the petitioner became sole and absolute owner of the subject premises;

(iii) By way of the eviction petition, the petitioner who was then 86 years of age, sought eviction of the respondents citing bona fid requirement for herself and of her two married daughters, Smt. Hemant Yadav and Smt. Neena Yadav. The bona fid requirement pleaded in relation to Smt. Hemant Yadav was that she planned to run a coaching-cumtuition centre from the subject premises; and that the subject premises was most suitable since the Karol Bagh area is central, well connected by road and metro transport to other parts of the city and is adjoining Rajender Nagar, which has become a hub of coaching centres. It was further pleaded that Smt. Hemant Yadav was well-qualified, eligible and competent to run a coaching-cum-tuition centre, being an M.A. in History and a B.Ed. from Delhi University. The requirement cited in relation to the other daughter, Smt. Neena Yadav/Neena Singh was that she plans to start a consultancy business in human resources from the subject premises, for which she is well-qualified, having earned an M.A. degree in Sociology from Delhi University and having previously worked as Additional Secretary at the PHD Chambers of Commerce & Industry. It was further pleaded that the petitioner''s daughters were her only children; that neither the petitioner nor her daughters had any alternate, reasonable and suitable accommodation for the purpose for which eviction was sought; and accordingly, the daughters were dependent upon the petitioner for commercial accommodation as aforesaid, which purposes could be served by the subject premises;

(iv) Furthermore, the details of the accommodation available with the petitioner for the aforesaid purposes were set-out in the eviction petition, including the exact requirement of space for the respective businesses that the two daughters proposed to run from there;

(v) It was also disclosed in the eviction petition that though the petitioner had a 20% undivided share in another property, bearing No.1000 Shivaji Street, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, (''Arya Samaj Road property'', for short) that property was however not available for use of the petitioner''s daughters since it was jointly-owned by the petitioner and the petitioner''s three sisters; and accordingly the said other property could not be considered suitable, alternate accommodation in the hands of the petitioner for the purpose for which eviction