MEGH RAJ ROSHAN LAL Vs. RASHMI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/tenant has filed the present petition, inter-alia, challenging the order dated 17th May, 2012 passed by the learned Addl. Rent Controller (North), Delhi, rejecting the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The respondent/landlady had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner/tenant in respect of the premises bearing No.5795-A, Chawla Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Premises"), on the ground that the suit premises, which was lying locked for last several years under the tenancy of the petitioner was bonafidely required by the respondent for her business in partnership with the other family members which included her brother-in-laws and mother-in-law etc. It was stated that the business was being carried under different entities, in which the respondent was a partner. The space in the rented premises from where the business was being run for storing business goods and for office space was insufficient and that the insufficiency of space was becoming a hurdle in the expansion of business.

(3.) After service of notice the petitioner filed its application/affidavit seeking leave to defend the eviction proceedings. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the application for leave to defend were inter alia, that (a) the site plan filed by the respondent along with the eviction petition was not accurate, as there exists a kolky admeasuring 3?6" x 4? on the first floor, thus, the respondent is having more than sufficient accommodation with her for carrying out the purpose for which the eviction was sought; (b) the respondent is having more than sufficient accommodation with her, as she is the owner of house No.D-112, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, a residential bungalow and was in occupation of other properties from where the businesses were being run; (c) that being the lady, the respondent was not managing any of the businesses and that she was a sleeping partner; (d) if the respondent was so keen to carry on the business, she could do so from her residential premises at Ashok Vihar where she is residing with her family and no family member dependent upon her requires the premises; and (e) she requires the property for her two brothers-in-law and mother-in-law who are having joint business of the members of joint family which requirement of the respondent is contrary to the scheme and mandates of provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.