The court emphasized the need to objectively test the projected requirement for setting up a new business or expanding an existing business and highlighted the importance of allowing the party seeking leave to defend an opportunity to test the truth of the averments of the opposite party by cross-examination.

1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the ‘Act’) impugns the order dated 25.11.2011 of the Commercial Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Rent Controller (Central), Delhi, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioners in the eviction petition filed against them by the respondent, was dismissed.

2. The petitioners are the tenants in one shop measuring 8’ x 20’ in property No. 5319, Hardhayan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi under the respondent. Their eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit shop by the respondent for himself and for his son, who had become major and wanted to set up a business. The case of the respondent as set out in the eviction petition was that he is a heart patient and is unable to do labour and thus, intended to establish his son to set up a business in the tenanted shop. It was his case that he has no other source of income, and thus, bonafidely required the suit shop for his son, who is completing his education by correspondence. It was then averred that he bonafidely required the suit shop for himself as also for setting up a business by his son.

3. The petitioners filed leave to defend application on various grounds, which came to be dismissed by the learned ARC vide impugned order. The same is under challenge in the instant petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned ARC has completely erred in ignoring the triable issues, which were raised by the petitioners. It was submitted that the learned ARC has also ignored that the requisite ingredients of Section 14(1) (e) of the Act were also not pleaded in the eviction petition inasmuch as it was nowhere pleaded by the respondent that he does not have any other suitable accommodation. It was also alleged that the learned ARC also overlooked that the respondent was already in possession of adjoining shop where he was doing his business, which he had not disclosed and had also not averred the said accommodation available with him to be not sufficient. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the nature of the business, which was sought to be set up by the respondent for himself and his son, has also not been disclosed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the respondent and perused the record.

6. It is undisputed that the respondent is in possession of accommodation adjoining the suit shop. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent had not disclosed in the eviction petition regarding his possession of this adjoining space. His submission in this regard was that it was not a shop, but a passage where the respondent was doing some business. In the leave to defend application, the petitioners had taken a specific plea of the respondent to be having this adjoining accommodation, which was a shop and where he alongwith his son, was carrying business under the name and style of M/s. Hemant Enterprises. The petitioners had also filed some documents in support of this submission. It was only in reply to this averment that the respondent, while admitting that he is the sole proprietor of M/s. Hemant Enterprises, stated that he is carrying on business of this firm at the space, which is only 4’x 20’ feet. The learned ARC has relied upon the report of the Local Commissioner, who also reported this space to be 4.2 feet x 34 feet with a door in between that passage and back space. He also relied upon the observations of the Local Commissioner that the respondent was carrying on this business at this space. Without commenting as to whether this accommodation available with the respondent was not suitable or sufficient for his projected need of setting up the business for himself and for his son, the fact remains that this was not disclosed by the respondent that he was in possession of this accommodation, which is adjoining the suit shop and from whe