$~15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 21.11.2019

+

RC.REV. 673/2015 & CM APP Nos.30983/2015, 17644/2016,

40463/2018 and 1394/2019

ASHOK KUMAR

..... Petitioner

versus

VISHAL SHARMA

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner:

Mr.Parinav Gupta, Mr.Pradeep Gupta and Ms. Mansi

Gupta, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr.Alok Kumar, Mr.Aakash Dubey and Mr.Vaibhav

Dubey Advocates.

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

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