SUDESH KUMAR BHASIN Vs. SATISH SACHDEVA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by virtue of which the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.8.2015 vide which the leave to defend has been granted to the respondent to contest the petition for eviction.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. I have also gone through the judgment of this court relied upon by the petitioner in Mittar Sain vs. Rajesh Kumar, RC. Rev. No.196/2013 decided on 22.8.2014. Suffice it would be here to mention that the petitioner, in the instant case, had claimed himself to be the joint owner and the landlord of the property bearing No.2368, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi along with other family members as co-owners. It is stated that the property has a basement bearing Private No.2 which is under the tenancy of the respondent since 1985. The petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacturing gold jewellery from three shops, two of which are situated on the first floor and one shop is situated on the ground floor of this very property. It has been stated that the petitioner and his sons now want to expand their business and increase their earnings in the same line of manufacturing ornaments and for this purpose, they intend to install machines which require space and hence, they project the bona fide requirement.

(3.) The respondent filed his leave to defend and stated in the same that the petitioner has nearly 40 shops in his possession out of which 16 shops are lying vacant which can be used for his business. It has also been stated that from time to time, the petitioner has been letting out these shops and in case his bona fide requirement would have been genuine then he would not have admitted new tenants.