KHARATI RAM KHANNA AND SONS Vs. KRISHNA LUTHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision has been filed against order dated 18th February, 2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as 'Controller') Delhi, vide which application under Section 25-B of Rent Control Act 1958 (for short as 'Act') seeking leave to contest filed by respondent, was dismissed and eviction order has been passed against petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts are that respondent (who is petitioner in trial court) is owner/ landlord of shops number 538 and 539, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and is in occupation of shop No. 539. Petitioner (who is respondent /tenant in trial court) had taken shop No. 538, measuring approximately 65 sq. yards, at a monthly rent of Rs. 18/- per month, from predecessor-in-interest of respondent. In 1988, husband of respondent took on rent one shop bearing No. 540 in same vicinity from Sh. Vijay Sharma and shifted his family business to the same. However, Wakf Board raised dispute about ownership of the said shop and initiated action against the husband of respondent, who filed a suit for injunction against Wakf Board, but lost the same. Appeal against same is pending. The occupation of the said shop has now become uncertain.

(3.) Sh. K.L. Luthra, husband of respondent and her two sons namely, Sh. Deepak Luthra and Sh. Manoj Luthra shifted major part of their business of fancy embroidery suits and other apparels to shop number 539. The width of its front portion is about 8 feet in all. Rest of the portion of shop is behind the demised shop. Family business of respondent is facing lot of difficulties as front portion of shop is too narrow and inadequately spaced to attend all the customers. Invariably, customers at the shop of respondent have to stand outside till the customers already inside the shop leave the shop. Respondent has claimed bonafide requirement for the premises in question on the ground that a sufficient big space is required to display embroidery work in the shop and windows. Respondent also wants to make division of entire space available in shops No. 538-539 to establish her sons separately and independently in her property and in the same trade. Since width of shop in occupation of respondent is only around 8 feet, it is not possible to divide it further to carve out two independent shops. Only option for respondent is to get the demised shop vacated and divide entire portion of two shops bearing No. 538 and 539 in equal shares up to the rear portion and have two independent shops of the same dimensions.