SANJAY BATRA Vs. GULSHAN SAHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment is dated 14.07.2011; eviction filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant from a shop bearing No. 62, Khursheed Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi measuring 6X3 square feet as depicted in the red colour in the site plan had been decreed in favour of the landlord. The application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been dismissed.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord against two tenants qua the aforenoted premises. Contention is that the premises have been let out to the tenant on 18.12.1990 vide a rent agreement; the landlord is the owner of the suit premises having purchased them from one Narender Kumar vide a registered power of attorney and other allied documents dated 15.11.1990; the present tenant was inducted into the shop vide a rent agreement dated 08.12.1990; he is running a business of wholesale of various kinds of cloths under the name and style of 'M/s Sun Raj Sports' in the aforenoted premises. The landlord is living with his family comprising of four family members i.e. his wife, his elder son aged 25 years and younger son aged 20 years; family is living together at the ground floor of Prashant Vihar in a tenanted premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 9,000/-. The landlord is also carrying out the business of dealing in various kinds of towels under the name and style of 'M/s Gulshan Agency'; he is the proprietor thereof; his business has now expanded; his elder son is running his own business under the name and style of 'Deepak Agencies' from the residential premises from where the present petitioner is also carrying out his proprietorship business. Both the petitioner and his son are using their residence for keeping their stock which place is highly insufficient; their drawing room and verandah is thus occupied by the stocks of both the petitioner and his son. It has specifically been averred that the family of the petitioner has no other alternate accommodation available with them and the present premises are accordingly required by him as also for his son for stocking of their goods which are presently being kept in their residential accommodation which place is a tenanted place and even otherwise is highly insufficiently space for the said purpose; the shop/godown which has been tenanted out to the tenant is accordingly bonafide required by the petitioner for the aforenoted purpose.

(3.) ARGUMENTS have been addressed and record has been perused.