AMARCHAND JAIN Vs. DEWAN SALES CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present rent revision petition has been filed under section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred as "ACT") assailing the judgment/order dated 08.11.2011 passed by Ld. Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in eviction petition bearing no.E-70/2011, whereby the application filed by the respondent seeking leave to defend, was allowed.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that, petitioner is the owner/landlord of property bearing no. IX /6882, Arya Samaj Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi- 110031(hereinafter referred as ,,suit property). The respondent firm was inducted as tenant in one two sides open corner shop (hereinafter referred as ,,tenanted shop) on ground floor of suit property in 1986 by erstwhile owner namely Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma. Petitioner filed eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred as ,,ACT) for meeting his bonafide commercial requirement. It was stated by the petitioner that he requires tenanted shop for use and occupation of himself and for his two sons namely Sanjeev Kumar Jain and Rajiv Kumar Jain. It was further stated that petitioner is carrying on business of manufacturing and wholesale of readymade jeans under the name and style Vaishali Garments from the shop adjacent to the tenanted shop. Petitioner further stated that he needs the tenanted shop to expand his business, as tenanted shop is situated in commercial hub of business of jeans, from where he can display his products, as at present he does not have good space for displaying his products. He further stated that he is facing crunch of space to stock his products. Hence, the tenanted shop in suit property was stated to be required for meeting his bonafide commercial needs as he does not have any other reasonably suitable commercial property.

(3.) THE order of granting leave to contest the eviction petition to the respondent has been challenged in the present proceedings on the ground that Ld. ARC failed to appreciate the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and his family members. It was also assailed on the ground that Ld. ARC completely failed to exercise his jurisdiction as he himself raised the triable issue as to whether the petitioner has sufficient space to display his products when he has not disclosed as to how many products he wanted to display. It was stated that Ld. ARC has committed grave illegality by not considering the material on record. It was urged that Ld. ARC wrongly came to the conclusion that the name of partner is required in the memo of parties.