PREM PRAKASH MALIK Vs. RAM GOPAL RAJVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as the "Act") against the order dated 21.04.2011, passed by ld. ARC/ACJ/CCJ whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner tenant was dismissed and eviction order qua tenanted shop bearing no. 97, Bhagat Singh Market, Near Gole Market, New Delhi, was passed in favour of the respondent landlord.

(2.) The eviction petition was filed by the respondent, against the petitioner in respect of the tenanted shop, submitting that he is the shop's owner and landlord and it was let out to the tenant for commercial purpose at Rs. 500/-p. m. It was submitted that the tenanted shop is now required by him for his own commercial use. It was also stated by the respondent that he is carrying on the business of trading scientific items under the name and style of M/s Kawanjit Traders in a portion of shop no. 91, Bhagat Singh Market, Near Gole Market, New Delhi, along with his two sons who are also running their independent and separate businesses of trading scientific items in the same shop. It was also stated that his younger son is also using a small portion of tenanted shop for the purpose of storage. It was averred by the respondent that his business had substantially expanded with the passage of time, and both his sons are also engaged in separate businesses and one shop is not sufficient to accommodate the customers and his sons and hence he bonafidely required the tenanted shop.

(3.) Upon receiving summons, the petitioner tenant filed an application for leave to defend and raised the plea that the landlord already had a shop in the commercial area from where he is running his business for last several decades and it is adequate to meet his requirement and there is no bona fide necessity of the tenanted shop. It was also alleged that the landlord and his sons are running one business only and the same business is being shown split up as three firms for the purpose of saving tax and the shop no. 91, Bhagat Singh Market is sufficient for running a single business by the landlord and his sons. It was also stated that the landlord is in possession of several other properties which are concealed from the Court. Lastly, it was urged that the sons of the respondent are not dependant on him for commercial premises and the requirement, as projected by the landlord, is not a bonafide one.