JAGDISH LAL KHORANA Vs. HEMANT ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, all the aforesaid revision petitions under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') are being disposed of as all these arise out of the identical orders dated 24.04.2012 of Commercial Civil Judge-cum-Addl.Rent Controller (ARC) passed in the eviction petitions filed by the petitioner against the respondents, whereby the leave to defend applications filed by them, were allowed.

(2.) The respondents are tenants in their respective shops in the suit premises under the petitioner. Their eviction is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted shops by the petitioner for setting up the regional sales and marketing office for his sons Narender Kumar and Suresh Kumar and also for setting up the career of his grandsons Ashish and Rahul, who intended to open a retail and display outlet showrooms of electrical goods in the two shops. The premises is also stated to be required for his daughter-in-law Suman for expanding of boutique business, which she is running in the mezzanine floor of the suit premises. It was his case that he is aged about 83 years and is leading a retired life and as such, he keeps visiting his two sons Narender and Suresh in Delhi and third son Ajay Kumar in Calcutta. His sons Narender and Suresh are engaged in the business of electrical appliances in the industrial area where they do not have any suitable commercial space for opening regional sales and marketing offices and thus, the petitioner required the tenanted shops for them. His grandsons Ashish and Rahul also wanted to open a retail and display outlet for electrical goods and for that also, two shops are required. His daughterin-law Suman is running a business of boutique from the mezzanine floor of the premises, which has small entrance of four feet from the front side, and thus, the front shop is required for expansion of her business. It was averred that the petitioner does not have any other reasonably suitable commercial accommodation available for the requirements of two sons, grandsons and the daughter-in-law.

(3.) The leave to defend applications were filed by the respondents, which came to be allowed by the learned ARC vide separate impugned orders dated 24.4.2012. The same are under challenge in the instant petitions.