JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.05.2020 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi in Eviction Petition No.5966/2016 titled Smt. Shiv Devi vs. M/s J.S. Sharma & Sons (through its Proprietor Sh. J.S. Sharma), dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14D of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The respondent had filed the eviction petition against M/s J.S. Sharma and sons claiming it to be a proprietorship concern of Late Sh. J.S. Sharma, who was then alive, with respect to shop No.1 to 3 in property No.1/17526, Ground Floor, Yusuf Sarai, Gautam Nagar Road, New Delhi-110016 (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises).

3. In the Eviction Petition, it was stated that the tenanted premises is being used for running a jewellery shop. In the petition, it was further averred as under:

"2. That the Shops Private No. 1 and 3 in Property No. 1/17526, Ground Floor, Yusuf Sarai, Gautam Nagar Road, New Delhi were initially let out to the respondent by the deceased husband of the petitioner Sh. Suresh Chandra Meena in the year 1985. Thereafter the shop private No.2 on the ground floor of the above said property was also vacated by the tenant Sh. Om Prakash and the shop No.2 was also let out to the respondent on 18.01.1997 vide a written agreement by the late husband of the petitioner. Vide this agreement, permission was given to the respondent to join the three shops and it was further agreed that from that day onwards it will be treated as single tenancy for all the three shops and a consolidated monthly rent of Rs.2000/- was agreed to be paid for all the three shops. Since then the respondent has been making the payment of monthly rent @Rs.2000/- exclusive of electricity and water charges and a single rent receipt is being issued to the respondent.

xxxxxx

8. That the petitioner is suffering from Chronic Osteo Arthritis in both knees and is being treated by AIIMS Hospital. Because of her medical condition she has been advised to avoid stairs. The petitioner is unable to walk without support and uses a walker for walking. She requires a full time attendant. She is also a patient of Hyper Tension and Diabetes, which has further made her weak.

9. That the petitioner is unable to use stairs without help. Thus, every time the petitioner is to be taken to the hospital or for her physiotherapy sessions, she is made to sit in a chair and with the help of two or three persons, she can be taken up and down the stairs. Thus, in case of an emergency it is very difficult to bring her down if there are no male members present in the house. The task of moving, the petitioner down stairs is extremely strenuous and can cause injury to the petitioner.

10. That the petitioner is living like a prisoner, confined to her room. This confinement is affecting her mental and physical health. The petitioner wants to visit the nearby park and her family members or the female attendant can take her to the park, if she shifts to ground floor, so that she can enjoy nature and can get fresh air."

4. An application seeking leave to defend was filed on behalf of the petitioner M/s J.S. Sharma & Sons through its partner Mr. Mukesh Sharma. The same has come to be dismissed by the Impugned Order.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside on the following grounds:

(a) That the petition was filed claiming M/s J.S. Sharma & Sons to be proprietorship concern of Sh. J.S. Sharma, however, in paragraph 3(b) of the eviction petition itself, M/s J.S. Sharma & Sons was shown to be the proprietorship concern of Mr. Mukesh Sharma, the son of Sh. J.S. Sharma. He submits that in fact, the lessee of the tenanted premises is M/s J.S. Sharma & Sons, which is a partnership concern of Late Mr. J.S.