NATHU RAM Vs. RAJ BHUSHAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.8.2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge -cum -Rent Controller, Shahdara District, Delhi, rejecting the leave to defend application of the petitioner and passing of an eviction order against him.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Additional Rent Controller has erroneously considered the submission made by the petitioner and arrived at a wrong conclusion by denying him the leave to defend. It was contended that the eviction of the present petitioner was claimed by the respondent/landlord from the shop in question bearing No. 8/92, Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi on the ground that the same is required by the respondent/landlord for establishing of a separate business of jewellery to be run by his son Aman Gupta. It was also contended by him that Aman Gupta was actually doing the business along with his father under the business name of Nav Bhushan Jewellers at shop No. 8/86, Gali Jain Mandir, Shahdara, Delhi and therefore, he could not be said to be unemployed and in any case, even if it was assumed that the shop which is under the occupation of the petitioner was required for the purpose of setting up a separate business in the same line, the requirement of the respondent/landlord was to be considered as a requirement for additional accommodation for which he had to not only to prove the requirement but also permit the present petitioner to adduce evidence that there was no such requirement.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has justified the impugned order and has stated that the leave to defend application of the petitioner has been rightly rejected for the reasons that no triable issue was made out from the said leave and further that the petitioner could not be permitted to take advantage of withholding the premises when there was comparative lesser hardship to the petitioner from dislocation as he was admittedly having 13 other shops in his possession which fact has not been denied by him.