The main legal point established is that the landlord's bonafide requirement for the premises should be liberally construed, and the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil can be applied to reveal the true identity of a company in the context of eviction under the DRCA.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The impugned judgment is dated 17.02.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlord Major S.P.Marwah seeking eviction of his tenant Ram Swarup Gupta from the suit premises i.e. shop bearing No. 56-B, Khan Market, New Delhi had been decreed. The application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been declined.

2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). Premises had been tenanted out to the tenant; relationship of landlord and tenant has not been disputed. Grounds of eviction are contained in para 18 (a) wherein it has specifically been contended that the petitioner is the owner of the suit shop; premises had been leased out to the tenant; wife of the petitioner namely Smt. Afsana Marwah is a jewellery designer; the petitioner and his wife started a jewellery business at 297, Forest Land, Neb Sarai, New Delhi which is their residential address; they have been running this business from their residence as they have no other commercial space available with them to carry out this business of jewellery; because of this handicap, they have not been able to increase the volume of their sale and are not able to attract more customers; only persons known to the petitioner and his wife come to purchase jewellery from them; the petitioner got a company incorporated in the name of ‘A & T Jewels Pvt. Ltd.’ on 13.08.2007 having a registered office at their residence. In this company, the petitioner, his wife and his son are the directors and shareholders; the petitioner and his wife are assessed to income tax in their jewellery business since the last ten years; premises are required bonafide by the petitioner to carry out their business in order to augment the sale of jewellery products; present business being carried out from their residence is not lucrative; honest need to start the business from the aforenoted commercial premises is accordingly made out; further contention being that the petitioner and his family members do not own any other commercial space for running the aforenoted business.

3. An application seeking leave to defend had been filed by the tenant. Various contentions have been raised. The arguments urged before this Court have been confined to three-fold submissions. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that a company is a separate legal entity and the plea of the petitioner in his eviction petition is the need of the aforenoted premises for the company; company being an independent juristic person, the need of the company cannot be equated with the need of a natural person; provisions of Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA are thus not applicable. To support this submissions, reliance has been placed upon (2003) 115 Comp. Cas 127 Kerala Basheer Vs. Lona Chackola; contention being that the company being an entity different from the individual, the need of the company in which the petitioner is a director cannot be said to be the need of the landlord for his ‘own’ occupation within the terminology of Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA.

4. Arguments have been countered. Submission is that this submission now pleaded does not even find mention in the application seeking leave to defend. This submission of the learned counsel for the respondent has force. There is no dispute to the proposition that triable issues have to be emanate from the pleadings of the parties which includes the application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant. The application seeking leave to defend does not make any mention of this first argument which has now been urged to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded but his submission is that this is a legal proposition and can be taken up at any point. This submission of the petitioner is mis-directed; no objection having been raised by the tenant about the petiti