The landlord's need for premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act should be established, and leave to defend should only be granted to the tenant if a prima facie case is disclosed.

1. The impugned judgment is dated 16.01.2010. Vide the impugned order, the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend in a pending proceedings under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been granted and the defendant was permitted to defend his case. This is the grievance of the petitioner who is the landlord before this Court.

2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by two petitioners of whom petitioner No. 1 has a son namely Harjot Singh for whose business establishment the present disputed premises is required; petitioner No. 2 is a bachelor. Contention in the eviction petition is that Harjot (son of petitioner No. 1) aged 30 years wishes to carry on a retail business; the disputed premises are shop located on the ground floor of property bearing No. 7-A/2, WEA, Channa Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi; contention in the eviction petition is that the petitioners who are the owner of the said premises by virtue of succession after the death of their mother Smt. Jaswant Kaur require these premises for starting the business of Harjot (the son of petitioner No. 1) who is presently unemployed. Eviction petition was accordingly filed.

3. Leave to defend has been filed and the averments contained therein have been perused. By and large the contention raised is that the need of the petitioners is malafide for the reason that the petitioners are themselves doing their lodging business from the other floors of the property; there are other two shops besides the present shop; Harjot is also doing the business of lodging and is assisting his father in the business and earning a handsome amount by letting out rooms which are situated on the other floors of the property; premises are thus not required bonafide by the petitioners.

4. Inspite of the matter having been remained on the board (taken up in the category of “senior citizens”), none has appeared for the respondent since morning; none had appeared on the earlier dates also.

5. The impugned order has noted that the triable issues have arisen for the reason that the petitioner/landlord had concealed facts; it has not been disclosed that petitioner No. 1 is doing the business of paying guests under a Bed and Breakfast Scheme; this amounts to a material concealment for which the landlord must be penalized; the moreover the Court had noted that the contention of the tenant that Harjot is earning handsome amount from the said business of paying guests and is also helping his father also raises a triable issue.

6. Record shows that the impugned order suffers from an illegality; the bonafide need of the petitioners for the aforenoted premises has prima-facie been established. There is no dispute to the fact that Harjot is the son of petitioner No. 1 and nephew of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 admittedly in the original eviction petition has not disclosed that he is doing the business under a bed and breakfast scheme; the bonafide need of the petitioners for the disputed premises which is for the purpose of running a business for his son Harjot who is an independent individual aged 30 years and is unemployed. The bald submission of the petitioner that Harjot is employed has been vehemently denied; where and with whom Harjot is employed has not in any manner been detailed by the tenant; this appears to be a bald submission; the second contention that even presuming that Harjot is assisting his father in the bed and breakfast programme would not disentitle him from running his own independent business. He is admittedly a major and has no disqualification preventing him from exercising his right to carry out a separate business.

7. Record shows that along with eviction petition certain documents had been filed which included the ‘Bed and Breakfast Scheme’ which has been propounded by the Delhi Government by promulgation of the “Bed and Breakfast Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2007”. Record furthe