The landlord's requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive. Unless a triable issue arises, leave to defend should not be granted in a routine or mechanical manner.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The impugned judgment is dated 04.01.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlord Anil Kumar Bahl against his tenant Bata India Ltd seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement as contained in Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed; the application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been dismissed.

2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord who is a resident of B-127/2, DDA Flat, East of Kailash, New Delhi. The premises in dispute is a shop bearing municipal No. XV/4745, abadi of main bazaar, Paharganj Masjid, New Delhi. The tenant is in occupation of these premises for commercial purpose at the monthly rent of Rs.1,200/-per month. The petitioner is stated to be an employee of a bank; he has three daughters of whom two are professionally qualified and have qualified entrepreneur skills; the second daughter although professionally qualified is yet unemployed; the premises are required bonafide by the petitioner to provide infrastructure to his daughter to start her own business; further contention being that there is no other premises available with the plaintiff from where his daughter can start her business; further contention being that the petitioner shall retire in 2012; he has spent almost 32 years in the banking sector and has sound knowledge of nitty-gritty of business activity; he would also help in the business which is proposed to be started by his daughter.

3. Leave to defend was filed by the tenant; two objections were raised; the first was on the ownership/status of Anil Kumar Bahl as the landlord; the second objection related to the bonafide requirement of the landlord. In para 3 of the application seeking leave to defend, it has been specifically averred that the professional qualification of his unemployed daughter has not been disclosed by the landlord; this is only a means to get the property vacated in order that higher rent can be extracted; the intention of the landlord is not bonafide; in fact all his daughters are employed.

4. The corresponding para of the reply to the leave to defend has also been perused. It has been specifically stated that the daughter of the landlord who wishes to start this business is a professionally qualified statistician; the property being in the hub of the commercial area of Delhi would be most suitable for her professional needs; the submission was reiterated that the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises.

5. Record shows that a lot of correspondences had been exchanged between the parties which the petitioner for reasons best known to him had not been filed along with the eviction petition; certified copies of the said documents have been placed on record by the respondent. These documents show that the petitioner by virtue of a registered gift deed dated 16.11.1968 had become the owner of this suit property; this gift deed was executed by donor in favour of the present petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the rent is since been paid by the tenant to the landlord; 24 letters exchanged inter-se between the parties right from 21.02.1981 up to 30.10.2007 show that the parties admittedly share a landlord-tenant relationship and the tenant/petitioner has all along recognized Anil Kumar Bahl as his owner and landlord. In fact on a specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why these documents were not filed along with the eviction petition, he has no answer. It is an admitted position that all these documents were a part of the trial Court record and on the basis of the aforenoted documentary evidence as also the pleadings between the parties, the ARC had rightly concluded that Anil Kumar Bahl was the owner and landlord of the disputed premises. This contention has even otherwise not being pressed any further.

6. In this context, the Apex Court in the case of (1987) 4 SCC 193 Smt.Shanti Sharma & Other