The court emphasized the need for a meaningful construction of 'bonafide requirement' and the requirement of no other reasonably suitable accommodation for the landlord.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. By this order, I shall dispose of the revision petition filed under Section 25 – B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by the petitioner assailing the judgment and order dated 5th January, 2013 passed by the learned Rent Controller in the case No.E-48/12 filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner and his sister Poonam Gupta wherein the petitioner was declined the leave to defend in the proceedings and eviction order was passed as a consequence.

2. The brief facts leading uptil filing of the present petition can be enunciated as under: i) The respondent herein had filed a petition seeking an eviction of the property No.2700 against the petitioner tenant before the learned Rent Controller, Delhi. It was the case of the respondent in the petition that the tenanted premises i.e. one godown (behind shop bearing No.2700) comprised in property bearing No.10-E Mundewalan Street, Sadar Thana, Road, Delhi-110 006 which is shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”) was let out to the father of the petitioner namely Shri O.P. Gupta in the year 1952 by the erstwhile owner of the property Sh. Prithvi Chand Goel. The property came to the share of the respondent by way of will of the erstwhile owner. ii) The respondent instituted the proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 whereby the respondent pleaded that the suit premises are required on the ground of the bonafide requirement. The said eviction proceedings were registered as Eviction Petition No.58/2008 before the learned Rent Controller. Thereafter the respondent withdrew the said proceedings before the learned Rent Controller by filing an application seeking withdrawal. By way of order dated 2nd February, 2012, the learned Additional Rent Controller allowed the respondent to withdraw the proceedings. iii) Later on, the respondent herein again filed the petition under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act before the Rent Controller seeking the eviction of the petition on the ground of the bonafide need. The said eviction was registered as eviction petition No. 48/2012. The summons were issued in the said proceedings. iv) The petitioner herein pursuant to summons filed the application as per the provisions of Section 25 –B (iv) of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking leave to defend along with his affidavit. The said leave to defend contained several grounds which can be summarized in the following manner: a) That the petition filed by the respondent suffers from concealment of fact as it has not been disclosed that the respondent’s mother has taken over the possession of the property adjoining the suit premises bearing No. 2698 and 2700, first floor Mundewalan Street, Sadar Thana, Road, Delhi-1100 06 by the orders of the Rent Controller dated 25th September, 2008 and thus her plea that she genuinely requires the premises for herself and her husband is questionable. b) It has been further stated that the first floor of the property Nos.2621, 2623, 2696-2700 was sold by the respondent to her nephew Shri Deepak Goyal on 28th August, 2009 and likewise the godown of the said property has been transferred to Mr. Deepak Goel by way of the Gift Deed dated 28th August, 2009 to create an artificial shortage of the accommodation. c) It has been contended that the respondent herein/ plaintiff therein has herself filed the earlier eviction petition no. E-58/2008 on the ground of the bonafide requirement and during the pendency of the said petition, the said properties were transferred by the respondent to her nephew and thereafter the said petition was withdrawn by the respondent and filed afresh in the present form. All this would mean that the respondent does not require the accommodation bonafidely. Besides the above grounds, the petitioner raised other grounds as well which find mention in his affidavit. However, the petitioner has majorly raised the afor