BALDEV RAJ ARORA Vs. MOHINDER LAL SAHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order dated 21st January 2013 passed by learned ARC (North-West), Rohini, Delhi, dismissing the leave to defend application of the petitioner in an eviction petition filed by the respondent in respect of one shop on the ground floor of the property bearing no. WZ-916, Rani Bagh, Delhi- 110034 (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted premises")

(2.) The respondent averred that he bonafidely required the tenanted premises for his married son who wanted to start his independent business in the tenanted premises. It was stated in the eviction petition that the respondent alongwith his wife and daughter were residing in the property bearing no. WZ-916, Rani Bagh, Delhi- 110034 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"). it was stated that the respondent has a business of manufacturing and trading of spectacles under the name and style of M/s Imperial Optical Works from a shop in Fatehpuri, wherein his married son helped him, however, now the son of the respondent wanted to stand on his own legs being married with Smt.Megha Sahgal and one baby residing with them. His son is totally dependent upon the respondent for the purpose of accommodation, hence the respondent wanted to provide a separate shop to his son for which purpose the eviction petition was filed

(3.) The petitioner in his leave to defend application disputed the ownership of the tenanted premises and averred that only the back portion of the tenanted premises fell to the share of the respondent. The petitioner disputed the bonafide need of the respondent and contended that the son of the respondent was well-settled and was engaged in the business of spectacles at Fatehpuri alongwith the respondent for the last 10 years. It was also averred that the respondent has suitable and sufficient accommodation, which was lying vacant in the same area and was seven times more in comparison to the tenanted premises.