RK BANSAL Vs. JAG PRAVESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned before this court is the order dated 18.05.2010 whereby an application for leave to defend filed by the tenant-R.K. Bansal in a pending eviction proceedings filed by the landlord-Jag Pravesh Sharma under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed.

(2.) Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord on the ground of a bonafide requirement as contained in Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'DRCA'). The demised property comprise of two shops on the ground floor of the property bearing No. 7226/XV, Qutab Road, New Delhi as depicted in blue colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. Petitioner is stated to be the owner of the disputed premises stating that he bonafidely requires the said premises for the use of the said premises by his wife and his two sons, namely, Meenakshi Sharma, Amit Kapila and Sumit Kapila who are residing with him and are dependent upon him for their needs both residential as also for carrying out their business. It is stated that the wife of the petitioner and his two sons have no other property and they require this property bonafidely for running their business. Their partnership firm constituted under the name and style of 'M/s. Mahadev Sales Corporation' which is carrying on a wholesale and retail business in marble, pre-laminated article boards etc. from the adjoining premises since April 2000; running stock of the business is more than Rs. 49 lacs and the accommodation presently available cannot accommodate the said stock. Business cannot be expanded on account of paucity of accommodation; accordingly, disputed premises are required by the petitioner for running the aforenoted business of his wife and two sons.

(3.) In the application for leave to defend various triable issues are sought to have been raised and also have been orally urged before this court. It is contended that the submission of the landlord that his both sons are residing with him is false; Amit Kapila is a resident of Canada and is permanently settled there; petitioner has concealed the fact that he has a 100 sq. yds. area at A-1/34 WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi from where petitioner is carrying out his business. It is contended that the stocks worth Rs. 49 lacs have been incorrectly averred; all these facts are triable issues; further contention of the present petitioner is that the site plan filed by the landlord alongwith the eviction petition is not correct.