KUSUM JAIN Vs. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition assails judgment dated 03.12.2010 whereby the eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent seeking eviction of the tenanted premises being shop No. 1/196/1 Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt., was dismissed. The respondent is a tenant in the aforesaid shop under the petitioner. The petitioner has sought eviction of the respondent from the tenanted shop on the ground of her needing the same for her son Sachin. It was her case that she has no other alternative accommodation available for setting up business of her son Sachin who is physically handicap and cannot move properly. Sachin is a qualified BBA and intended to settle by establishing a readymade garments business. As he was unable to do the business independently and would require the assistance, the petitioner being his mother would be assisting him in his business. They are residing on the first floor, the tenanted shop, which is just below their residence, was stated to be more suitable for setting up business for her son Sachin. It was her case that there was one shop available with them adjoining the tenanted shop; but that was too small in width and not suitable for readymade garment showroom. She thus required the tenanted shop to have proper width and where they can have two tailors and two try rooms.

(2.) AFTER obtaining leave to defend, the respondent filed written statement. Beside others, it was alleged that the petitioner and her husband and son have several other properties. The description was given of as many as six such properties. In addition, it was also averred by the respondent that the suit premises measured 21'.10" x 59'.6" and that the shop in his possession measured 10'6" x 18' feet and the rest of the ground floor as also the first floor was with the petitioner. It was also alleged that Sachin was doing the business of steels at shop No. 2140/12 and also imparting tuitions. It was denied that the shop available with the petitioner was small in width and not suitable for readymade garments. It was specifically stated that the rear wall of this shop has already been removed and the rear portion of the ground floor has been joined with the shop which is lying vacant and which is more than sufficient to run the business.

(3.) BOTH the parties led their evidence. Learned ARC returned a finding that the petitioner and her son could very well run readymade garment showroom from the shop already in their possession and that the need of requiring the tenanted premises was not bona fide. He accordingly dismissed the petition.