JAGMOHAN KASHYAP Vs. SHIV DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.06.2012 of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (South) whereby leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, who was respondent in the eviction petition, was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner is tenant in respect of a shop under the respondents in property No. 1/17526, Gautam Nagar Road, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. His eviction was sought by the respondents for bonafide requirement of the said shop for enabling her younger son Ravi Kumar Meena to set up his business.

(3.) THE learned ARC rejected the leave to defend application, filed by the petitioner, observing that the petitioner has not been able to raise any triable issue which would disentitle the respondents to seek his eviction. It was observed that one of the two shops on the ground floor is with the tenant and other was occupied by her and thus none of these two shops can be said to be available for setting up a new business by her son Ravi Kumar Meena. With regard to the third shop at corner, it was observed that the said shop was of smaller size of 10 ft x 10 ft. and could not be said to be reasonably suitable for setting up a new business. It was undisputed that her elder son Ajay Kumar Meena was running his general store business at the first floor of the suit premises and that being so, there was no space available for setting up a business by her younger son Ravi Kumar Meena. It is not in dispute that the respondents are residing at 2nd floor of the suit premises. With regard to the third and fourth floors, it was observed by the learned ARC, and rightly so, that these floors cannot be said to be reasonably suitable for business purposes. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition that any business which is running from the ground floor of the premises would attract more customers than the business running from basement and upper floors. With regard to the accommodation available with the respondents in the suit premises, as noticed above, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the ARC.