SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. RAMA MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner impugns order dated 16.05.2018 whereby leave to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from one Shop on the South-West corner of the building bearing No. 13/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi on the ground of bonafide necessity under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, more particularly as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the eviction petition.

(3.) Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition contending that they are owner/landladies of the suit property and the tenanted premises were required bonafidely for their personal use, particularly for the use of respondent no. 3 who does not own or possess any other commercial accommodation to establish her office. It is contended that respondent no. 3 is a qualified Advocate and at the time of filing of the eviction petition was working with Press Trust of India (P.T.I.) as a Legal Consultant and she was desirous of opening an independent office in the tenanted premises as she had no other independent office/accommodation available anywhere in the city of Delhi.