HARSUKH DAS BHAGWANDAS Vs. BRAHMALATA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of DRC Act (for short the Act?) assails order dated 03.11.2011 of Additional Rent Controller (ARC), North, whereby leave to defend application filed by the petitioners, in the eviction petition filed by the respondent, was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm with petitioner No. 2 as one of its partners. The partnership firm is a tenant in respect of part of the Ground Floor bearing Municipal No. 5624, Katra Jamun, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006 where the firm is doing its business. The respondent claiming herself to be owner/landlady, filed eviction petition against the petitioner partnership firm on the ground of bonafide requirement thereof by her for carrying on business by her husband, who is carrying on wholesale business of cloth on the first floor of the same premises. It is averred by the respondent that her husband wanted to expand his business, which he could not, due to paucity of space and because of his age of about 62 years, due to which he has difficulty in climbing the stairs. It is averred that his customers also feel difficulty to climb the stairs to reach his shop. It is averred that they do not have any other reasonably suitable commercial space and even otherwise the tenanted premises being on the ground floor, is more suitable for business purpose.

(3.) The petitioners filed leave to contest the application on various grounds. It is averred that the present accommodation of the respondent on the first floor, as also other accommodation in the same premises, is sufficient. It is alleged that the respondent and her other family members also have property bearing No. 5519, First Floor, Gali No. 74, Regarpura, Near Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 where husband and son of the respondent are doing their business for the last more than 10 years. It is next averred that the respondent and her husband also have share in commercial property No. 4292, Gali Bhairon, Nai Sarak, Delhi and are holding possession of part of the said property. It is also the petitioners? case that the respondent has two rooms in the basement, just below the tenanted premises. One out of these two basement rooms is lying vacant and about which the respondent has not disclosed. It is also alleged that a few years back, the respondent had let out one room of property No. 5624, Katra Jamun to one Vinod Aggarwal and has not chosen to seek his eviction if at all she required the commercial space on the ground floor. It is also alleged that adjoining to the shop of the respondent?s husband on the first floor, there is one shop in the possession of Rohtas Singh, but the petitioner has not sought his eviction, despite the fact that it was more suitable for expansion of business. It is also averred that stairs leading to the first floor are of little height and the husband of the respondent being quite healthy he and the customers cannot have difficulty in climbing. It is also his case that the shop in property No. 5624 has two portions. The inner portion is owned by the petitioners, and that if they are evicted from the tenanted shop, they would not have any access to their inner shop and thus, shall suffer irreparable loss. In this regard, however, it is also their case that there is a passage between the tenanted shop and the petitioners? shop, which is the only way to enter into their shop located on the inner side of the tenanted shop.