HARSH SABHARWAL Vs. SHEETAL PRASAD JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short "the Act?) impugns order dated 21.01.2011 whereby leave to defend application filed by the petitioner herein in the eviction petition, was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Central.

(2.) The respondent had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner and his mother and sisters for seeking eviction from the tenanted premises comprising of a shop on the ground floor of premises No. 7/33, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj.

(3.) The tenancy was initially created in favour of petitioner predecessor Virender Kumar, the sole proprietor M/s Narang Scientific Electronic Equipments. Their eviction was sought on the ground of bonafide requirement of the tenanted shop for the office of Sushil Kumar Jain S/o of the respondent/landlord. The case that was set up by the respondent/ landlord is that he has three sons, and his son Sushil Kumar did not have any office space in the suit premises or anywhere else, but is sharing with his younger brother Sunil in a rented premises of Yogesh Kumar Jain. Sushil is carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Arihant Udyog and Sunil under the name and style of M/s. Paper Conductors. They both have their separate businesses. A site plan of the ground floor of the suit premises was annexed with the eviction petition, showing different portions of the ground floor of the premises as A, B, C, D and E and two rooms as commercial rooms. It is averred that Sushil is having his godown in portion E, which is adjoining the tenanted shop. Room shown by Mark A is stated to be in possession of his granddaughter-in-law Bani, who is doing her business in the name and style of Vikalp Events. The shops marked as B, C and E are stated to be in occupation of other tenants. It is also averred that all the members of the family of the respondent are having their offices within the compound of suit premises 7/33, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi which solves their problems. It is averred that Sushil would establish his independent office in the tenanted shop, which is within the compound of the main premises. Predicated on all these averments, the respondent sought eviction of the tenanted shop, alleging the same to be bonafide required by him for the office of his son Sushil. The petitioner sought leave to defend which was declined by the learned ARC vide the impugned order. The order of ARC is assailed by the petitioners on various grounds.