SHANTI DEVI Vs. RAJESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition u/S 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), assailing the order dated 05.05.2011, passed by the Additional Rent Controller (for short "ARC"), Karkardooma Court, Delhi, whereby the leave to defend application was dismissed and an eviction order was passed.

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant in respect of a shop premises situated on the ground floor of property no. 6157, Partap Street, behind Kothi Bhagwan Dass, Gandhi Marg, Delhi-110031 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit premises"), wherein she has been carrying on business in the name and style of "Disco Hair Dresser". The respondents filed an eviction petition in the month of February 2011 u/S 14(1) (e) of the Act. The respondents are running a cosmetic unit by the name of M/s Ravon (India) Cosmetics towards the backside of the suit premises. As per the site plan, it can be seen that the suit property is open on three sides. In the east, there is a small street/service lane of about 6 ft. wide and towards the north there is a street of about 15 ft. wide. On the west there is a 20 ft wide main road, which is the front portion of the suit property and on which there is one small shop and four other shops of almost equal dimensions, including the shop in possession of the petitioner/tenant. The respondents intend to open an office-cum- display counter on the side facing the main road i.e. the front side, in order to expand their business as the space available with them currently has become insufficient. The respondents also submit that the petitioner and her husband own a property No. 2488, Gali No. 8, Raghubar Pura No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 which is in the same locality as the suit premises and where the petitioner has ample space to run her business.

(3.) THE respondents have denied the issues raised by the petitioner. They have stated that a commercial plot has been allotted to them at Bawana, but they are yet to take possession of the same. In respect to the other alternative accommodations as alleged by the petitioner, the respondents were able to specifically deny each and every one of them. As regards the plot at Tronica City, it was allotted to respondent No. 2 for residence and has no concern with the business run by the respondents at the suit premises. Further, the property at Gandhi Nagar is used as a godown. The property at Derawal Nagar is used for residential purposes. The shop at Sadar Bazar is being exclusively run by Tarun Jain, the brother of the respondent and the respondent has no concern with same. In the rejoinder, the petitioner further denied the assertions of the respondent, except with regard to one of the shops in the suit premises, wherein the petitioner has later admitted that after getting the premises vacated by Nand Lal, the same has been let out again. All the issues raised by the petitioner have been dismissed by the Ld. ARC vide the impugned order. This order is under challenge in the present petition.