29. The first relevant alternate accommodation was the premises in question itself i.e. WZ-334, Nangal Raya, New Delhi110046. PW 1 had filed a site plan of this property (Ex. PW1/A). The side plan itself suggests that the frond portion of the shop on the ground floor and the entire second floor is available with the petitioner. Notably, the area of the shop on the font side of the ground floor is 10’0” x 20’6” whereas the portion on the second floor measures 10’0” x 50’6”. This area, taken together, would form a considerable amount of office space. The petitioner did try to explain this aspect by filing a business plan (Ex. PW1/D) qua the premises in question which reflected varies usage for the entire property viz the ground, first and second floors. The court finds the business plan to be a contrived document, filed only to satisfy the apprehension expressed in the order granting leave to defend inter alia that the petitioner had not disclosed in her reply to the application for leave to defend as to what was her exact requirement of space to run the institute. Also, the court has disbelieved the stated bonafide requirement in the earlier part of the judgment where it was observed that the petitioner was unable to prove her work experience with the firm of her brother in law. The court would also note here the admission of the brother in law (PW2) during cross examination that he had thus far not outsources any work to any firm. If the petitioner never worked with PW 2 and PW 2 never outsourced work to any other person, it is inconceivable that the petitioner is earnest in operating a computer institute for doing outsourced work, ostensibly to be provided primarily by PW 2. Resultantly, the business plan Ex. PW1/D is a castle in the air.
