Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that it is a clear case of expansion of business and a triable issue is raised on the face of it. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Devi vs. Rajesh Kumar Jain & Anr., IX (2014) SLT 61 and the judgments of this court in R.C.Rev. No. 102/2012 dated 21.12.2012 titled as Prahalad Rai Mittal vs. Smt. Rita Devi and in R.C.Rev. No. 100/2013 dated 06.01.2014 titled as Sanjay Chug vs. Opender Nath Ahuja & Anr. to contend that in the case of additional accommodation, leave to defend should be granted. It is secondly urged that whether the said son of respondent No.1, namely, Sh. Aditya Khatri has a requirement of the shop or not is a question of trial. It is urged that the business that is sought to be opened in Delhi is only a proposed business. Various projections of space are sought to be made saying that the area of 620 sq. ft is required etc. These RC.REV.453/2016 Page 4 issues would require evidence. It is thirdly stressed that the said son is settled in Mumbai and he has no intention to come to Delhi and the stated intention is to expand his business. Other miscellaneous submissions have also been made about the capital requirement, etc. which would have to be proved by the respondents. Hence, it is urged that this was a fit case to grant leave to defend to the petitioner.