BABITA JAIN Vs. MAYA GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 19th September, 2012 whereby the leave to defend application of the Respondent was allowed by the learned ARC in an eviction petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') the Petitioner prefers the present petition.

(2.) IN the eviction petition, the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner along with the sister -in -law purchased the built up property bearing No. E -2/19, Jain Market, Shastri Nagar, Delhi -110052 admeasuring 196 Sq. Yards vide registered Sale Deed dated 10th February, 2005. The first floor of the said property was being used by the Petitioner and her sister -in -law for residential purposes. As per the family settlement the suit property was partitioned and half portion of the suit property fell into the share of the Petitioner whereas the other half portion fell into the share of the sister -in -law. The shops on the ground floor of the suit property were equally divided. The Petitioner was doing the business of readymade fabric for the last five years in which she has acquired requisite experience and thus now she wanted to start her own independent business of readymade garments for which purpose private Shop No. 2 which was in use and occupation of the Respondent as tenant was best suited for her needs. The Petitioner is presently running her business of readymade garments from her residence and intends to start a readymade garments business by getting the same prepared in her own way and by own designing and getting it embroidered through her workers by installing the embroidery and sewing machines in the shops which are presently under the use and occupation of the other tenants for which the Petitioner is taking legal steps for getting the shops simultaneously vacated and the tenanted premises was required for opening a showroom with regard to the said readymade business. The Petitioner wants to open a big showroom as there is tough competition in the readymade market business in the vicinity. The Respondent has already attorned the Petitioner as landlady and was paying rent to her by depositing the same under Section 20 of the DRC Act and the premises was let out to the Respondent for commercial purposes.

(3.) VIDE the impugned order the learned Trial Court granted leave to defend to the Respondent, for the reason that the facts revealed that there are total nine shops on the ground floor of the suit property including the tenanted premises and as per the agreement dated 10th June, 2005 in relation to Shop of one Sunita Jain on the west side of the property there was a wide road on the north side of the property and gali on the other side of the suit property and the same is sort of small shopping complex approachable from North and South side. Thus the case being of additional accommodation and as the peaceful vacant possession of Shop No. 4A being with the Petitioner was not disputed leave to defend was granted.