JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 28.07.2015 whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order passed.

2. Respondent has filed the subject eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from shop No.3, Plot No. 14, B block main market, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi more particularly, as shown red colour in the site plan annexed to the eviction petition.

3. Petition was filed by the respondent on the ground of bona fide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, contending that the mother of the respondent was the owner of the subject property and she passed away on 27.02.2011 leaving behind her husband and two sons including the respondent. Subsequently, father of the respondent also passed away and accordingly, respondent and his brother became owners of the subject property having one half share each. Thereafter, the brother relinquished his undivided 50 per cent share in the subject property by relinquishment deed dated 12.09.2013 in favour of the respondent and accordingly, respondent became the sole and exclusive owner of the subject property.

4. It is contended in the eviction petition that the family of the respondent comprises of himself, his wife and two minor daughters. His wife had obtained a diploma in first class in Fashion Designing from India International Trade Centre, Mumbai and had started a boutique in part of their Residence. However, the Residents Welfare Association objected to business being carried out from a residential area and accordingly, she had to close her business.

5. It is contended that respondent was running a chemist shop bearing shop No. 2 in the same property and as the financial needs of the family were growing his wife wanted to start her own business of boutique and fashion designing and accordingly, subject eviction petition was filed. It is contended that another eviction petition has also been filed for the adjoining shop.

6. It is contended that the shops are measuring 10’ x 10’ each and both the shops were required for doing business of boutique and fashion design. It is contended that the shops are situated in busy affluent market of Vivek Vihar area and ideally located for the business of boutique and fashion designing.

7. It is further contended that there is no other business property available to the respondent other than the subject property for carrying on the business by the wife of the respondent.

8. It is further stated that the respondent is the owner of the business property being a basement measuring 10’ x 10’ in South Extension, Plaza-I, Masjid Moth, which is on rent.

9. It is in these circumstances, contended that the subject premises are required bona fide for occupation as a business premises by the wife of the respondent and respondent has no other reasonably suitable accommodation available or commencing the business of his wife.

10. Subject leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner contending that another petition was filed by the respondent against the petitioner for the adjoining shop bearing No. 4, for which leave to defend was granted and the same was at the stage of evidence.

11. It is contended that since leave to defend was granted in the other petition, leave to defend should also be granted in this petition.

Further, it is contended in the affidavit that respondent is running a chemist shop and he was maintaining his family very well and there was no need or bona fide need.

12. It is further contended that the wife of respondent does not depend on the respondent for any purpose and there was no purpose for running a separate business and it is the responsibility of the respondent to maintain his wife and family.

13. It is further contended that the wife of the respondent was looking after small children and was not even assisting her husband in his business and she is being maintained by the respondent and is not interested in running any