ABDUL QADIR Vs. PRAKASH RANI BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present rent revision petition has been filed under section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred as "Act") assailing the judgment/order dated 14.02.2012 passed by Ld. Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in eviction petition bearing no.E-112/2011, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend, was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the respondent has filed the eviction petition dated 19.10.2011 under section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25-B of Act stating herself to be landlord and owner of the property bearing No. X- 3829, Gali No. 12, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the suit property). The petitioner herein is the tenant in respect of one shop situated on the ground floor of the suit property (hereinafter referred to as ,,tenanted shop). It was stated by the respondent that her family comprises of her son, daughter-in-law and a grandson aged about 12 years. It was averred that the family of the respondent resides at the back portion of the suit property and there is no additional accommodation for their residence except the back portion of the suit property. The respondent averred that she is carrying her business of export under the name and style of M/s. Bhalla Overseas from the adjoining shop marked as point A in the site plan. It was further averred that her son is carrying on his business in the name and style of M/s. Prakash Traders from the shop marked at point B in the site plan. It was submitted that her daughter in law namely Ms Pooja Bhalla is carrying on her business from shop bearing No. X-3850, Street No. 13, Main Road, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The respondent submitted that she requires the tenanted shop to expand her business as the space available with her in shop ,,A is insufficient to stock her products. Hence the tenanted shop is stated to be required for meeting her bonafide requirement of commercial need, as she does not have any other reasonably suitable commercial property to stock her products near her present place of business.

(3.) THE impugned order declining leave to contest and granting eviction decree to the respondent has been challenged in the present proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent herself has stated in her eviction petition that except the shop in question, the entire suit premises is in her actual possession. It was submitted that the need of the respondent was not bonafide, but she has malafide and dishonest intentions. It was submitted that the respondent had intentionally caused damage to the tenanted shop to pressurize the petitioner to vacate the same. It was also submitted that the respondent is the owner of three shops in property bearing No. X-3850 in Street No. 13, Main Road, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. It was submitted that the respondent is a lady aged about 75 years, and therefore, not in a position to expand her business. Hence, the tenanted shop was alleged to be not required for the bonafide commercial requirement.