KUSUM TYAGI Vs. SATISH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act') impugning the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 26.5.2012 by which the leave to defend application has been granted to the respondent/tenant.

(2.) One surprising fact is that today we are in September 2014 ie more than two years and three months after passing of the impugned order, but the petitioner has not even commenced leading her evidence. I may note that in Delhi eviction petitions are decided in about one and a half years or so and if the petitioner was sincere by now the main eviction petition itself would have been decided after completion of evidence.

(3.) The only aspect with respect to the issue of grant of leave to defend is that the petitioner/landlady claimed the suit/tenanted shop for carrying on business, however, respondent/tenant pleaded that an adjoining shop in November 2011 was let out to one Mr. Pawan Radhey. The Additional Rent Controller in para-4 of the impugned order notes that the respondent/tenant has placed on record the photographs as well as visiting card of the occupier of the second shop Mr. Pawan Radhey and who is carrying on business in the name of Shri Radhey Traders from the adjoining shop.