SARIKA JAIN Vs. SARAN SINGH CHHABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has assailed the eviction order dated 22nd December, 2011 passed by Additional Rent Controller, North, Delhi.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioners in respect of a shop bearing No. 52-A, Kucha Sukha Nand, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted shop") on the ground of bonafide requirement of expansion of business for himself, his son and grandson. It was stated that the respondent and his son started the business of fancy lights from shop No. 53 (first floor), Kucha Sukha Nand, Chandni Chowk in the year 2000, however, due to financial losses, the said business was closed. In the year 2007, the respondent and his son again started the business of sarees, ladies suit and lehngas in shop No. 52(ground floor), Kucha Sukha Nand, Chandni Chowk, while they started storing leather goods and also stocks of ladies suit, sareers and lehangas in the shop No. 53 on the first floor and also constructed a staircase in the said shop No. 52 on the ground floor leading to the first floor. The respondent and his son were stated to have been carrying on the business of leather goods in the name and style of M/s Chhabra Leather Emporium.

(3.) It was stated in the eviction petition that with the passage of time, the business of ladies suits etc. had expanded and entire space available on the ground and the first floor was being used for the said business and therefore, there was hardly any space available with the respondent for running the leather goods business. Though the business of leather goods was being managed somehow from shop No. 52 with great difficulty, the respondent wanted to seek eviction with regard to the tenanted shop, it being just adjacent to the business premises of the respondent and therefore, most convenient for the respondent and his son to run their business of leather goods separately from the tenanted shop. It was stated that the respondent has no other reasonable suitable accommodation available with him and that the grandson of the respondent had also recently joined the family business and therefore the respondent wanted to expand his business.