JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner impugns order dated 12.04.2019 whereby leave to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order passed.

2. Respondent no. 1 and 2 had filed the subject eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from shop bearing private No. 4, in property bearing Municipal No. 5, Church Mission Road, Fatepuri, Delhi, on the ground of bona fide 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 no. 1 and 2 had filed the subject eviction petition contending that their father had purchased the property from its previous owner namely Babu Lal Jatia Dharmarth Trust, Laxman Ganj, Khurja by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 26.06.1997.

4. Apart from the tenanted premises adjoining portion of the property was also purchased by them. It is contended in the eviction petition that respondent no. 1 and 2 were running the business of a Eating House under the name and style of Gole Hatti in the adjoining part of the property for the last 62 years and the shop is well known in the heart of the city.

5. It is contended that they have an entry of about 3.5 ft. in which they have installed a counter for sale and the entry of 3.5 ft. is too narrow and the customers as well as the staff have to enter from the narrow passage. It is contended that with passage of time, the business of the respondent no. 1 and 2 has increased substantially and accordingly they require the tenanted premises for expansion of their business.

6. It is contended that they do not have a proper arrangement for waiting area for the customers. It is contended that they have a sitting arrangement of about 30 persons and number of persons alongwith their families come to the Eating House but due to unavailability of proper sitting space they have to return.

7. It is contended that the entry of the Easting House is very narrow, merely 3 ft. And is also covered by a counter of the Eating House leaving a passage of only 2 - 3 ft. which is small. It is contended that the turnover of the business of respondent no. 1 and 2 is more than Rs.5 lakhs per month but the business can be increased if more space was available and business is suffering on account of shortage of accommodation. It is also contended that they are unable to serve variety of dishes because of non-availability of space and non-availability of kitchen. It is contended that they wish to increase the variety of dishes and increase their sale and output which they are unable to do because of paucity of space.

8. It is also contended that space is limited even for the staff of the respondent no. 1 and 2. It is contended that on account of paucity of space the kitchen has been set up at a distance in a different property and staff has to bring cooked articles from the said kitchen which affects the taste and freshness of the food items.

9. Subject leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner challenging the title of the respondent no. 1 and 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the respondent no. 1 and 2 had purchased the property from a trust, the same could not have been purchased without permission of the court and no such permission has been produced, the sale deed of the respondent no. 1 and 2 is under cloud. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in `Bharat Deep Sethi Vs. Sonia Takkar' 247 (2018) DLT 513.

10. Further it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the eviction petition expresses the need of six different purposes i.e. expansion of narrow passage, expansion of business, additional space for customers, setting up a kitchen and increasing space for staff, etc.

11. Learned counsel submits that respondent no. 1 and 2 are themselves not clear as to what purpose the tenanted premises is going to be used. Accordingly, it is contended that t