JUDGMENT

V.B.Gupta, J.

Present petition under Section 25 B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as 'Act') has been filed by petitioner challenging order dated 11th February, 2010, passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, vide which petitioner's application for leave to defend was dismissed and eviction order was passed.

2. Brief facts as emerges from eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25 B of Act are that, respondent is owner/landlord of property no. 228, Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The shop under the tenancy of petitioner was let out for commercial purposes. Respondent has no other commercial accommodation, except the shop adjoining the shop of petitioner. Respondent requires the shop in dispute bonafidely for himself and his family members dependent upon him for the purpose of businesses premises. Respondent requires the shop in dispute to enhance the business, as his family has grown up and require more accommodation to run the business. Son of respondent is working with the respondent and is participating in the business activities of the respondent and is dependent upon respondent for the purpose of business. Accommodation available with respondent has been shown in green colour in the site plan. As family of respondent has grown up, he needs the shop in dispute to settle his son along with him to enhance the business.

3. In affidavit filed along with application for leave to defend, it is stated by petitioner that respondent has filed two suits on the same cause of action, one under Section 14 (1) (j) of the Act, while another case was filed before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, which was dismissed. Present petition is counter blast of that suit.

4. It is stated that respondent has suppressed the material and true facts. Property in which petitioner is a tenant in respect of one shop and using the same for commercial purposes measures 80 sq. yds consisting of basement, ground floor and first floor. The measurement of the shop in question is about only 11 sq. yds which is in the use, occupation and possession of the petitioner, and rest of the property, which is about 69 sq. yds is in use, occupation and possession of the respondent. Respondent is also having a big shop adjoining the tenanted shop. Respondent knowingly has not filed the correct site plan and has not given total description of the measurement of the shop, which is in his possession. Respondent can easily extend his shop towards the back of the shop in the remaining portion of the property as entire portion of property, except the tenanted shop, is in possession of the respondent. The basement and first floor are also lying vacant, which are in the possession of respondent and same can be used for business purpose by the respondent.

5. It is further stated that respondent has only one son who is working with him since last 10-12 years and is well settled in the business. The business of respondent and his son is well settled in the adjoining shop. The respondent has sufficient commercial accommodation at present and he can enhance his business on the remaining portion of the suit property. Requirement of respondent is neither bonafide nor genuine.

6. In reply, respondent denied that he can easily extend his shop towards the back of the shop in the remaining portion of the property. The basement behind the shop of the petitioner which is small space for storing the goods, cannot be used or termed as a business place. The first floor is also being used for storing the goods but neither the first floor nor any basement cannot be used for business purposes as the front of the tenanted shop is situated on the main road where customers come for purchasing and nobody can expect that customers will go to the basement which is a small one to purchase goods from respondent, nor customers can approach first floor as there is no stairs from the front side. Even otherwise, it is the choice of the responde