The main legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's responsibility to prove the honest and untainted nature of their bonafide requirement for the premises, and the landlord being the best judge of their own requirement.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. This petition has impugned the order dated 29.7.2011 vide which the eviction petition filed by the landlord Zahoor Ahmed seeking eviction of his tenant from a part of the premises located on the first floor of the property bearing No.9821, Gali Zamir Wali, Nawab Ganj, Azad Market, Delhi had been decreed in favour of the landlord. The application for leave to defend filed by the tenant had been declined; impugned order had noted that no triable issue has been raised by the tenant.

2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been field on the ground of bonafide requirement; what has been let out to the tenant has been described as two rooms, one kitchen, latrine, bath room and open store on the first floor of the aforenoted suit premises; rent was `100/- excluding other charges; tenant has been described as a old tenant; it has been averred that he is also a chronic defaulter and he is not paying the rent regularly. In the body of the petition, it has been disclosed that the petitioner is the absolute owner and landlord of the property No.9821, Gali Zamir Wali, Nawab Ganj, Azad Market, Delhi measuring about 200 sq. yards. It comprises of a ground floor and first floor. The ground floor consists of three and open veranda and four shops out of which three rooms, open verandah and open store is in occupation of the petitioner as depicted in the green colour in the site plan. The first floor comprises of five rooms of which two rooms, one kitchen, latrine, bathroom and open store are in the occupation of the tenant and three rooms, latrine, bathroom and kitchen as shown in blue colour in the site plan are in the occupation of Zubeda Yusuf, the sister of the petitioner, who is in illegal occupation of the said premises. Relations between the petitioner and Zubeda Yusuf are strained and despite requests she is not vacating the suit property. Contention of the petitioner is that the his family comprises of himself, his wife, his son aged 30 years, his daughter in law, two grandsons aged 8 years and 5 years; two married daughters who frequently visit him. Present accommodation available with him is not sufficient; he requires one room for his grandsons who also requires tuitions and for this purpose the tutors visit his home; he requires another room for his married son and daughter in law; one room for himself and his wife; his daughters and sons-in-law visit him often; and as such he requires a guest room for his married daughters when they visit him; he has four vehicles; three are two wheeler scooters and one car; there is not enough parking, as a result the vehicles are parked in the gali which causes a nuisance. His contention is that one room which is adjacent to the main road on the ground floor is required by him for parking the said vehicles; the present accommodation which is available with him is insufficient for his needs; apart from three bed rooms which are required for his immediate family having in the premises a guest room as also a drawing room, living room, pooja room is also required. The accommodation presently available with him as depicted in green colour in the site plan is only three rooms; a bonafide need has accordingly been made out and the petition has accordingly been filed.

3. In the application for leave to defend, the details of alternate properties of the landlord are contained in para 5. Submission is that sufficient accommodation is available with the landlord; the eviction of the tenant from the present suit premises is not going to make any difference to the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing his claim qua the property mentioned at sub paras (a) and (b) as in the reply the landlord has specifically stated that the said properties are not connected with him and he is not the owner of thereof; the petitioner is not questioning this. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also not questioning the fact that other accommodat