The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'bonafide requirement' and the definition of 'family' in the context of eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the eviction order dated 23rd January, 2013 passed against the petitioner by the ARC (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in respect of one room situated in the property bearing No.147, Katra Mashru, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the “tenanted premises”).

2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are that the tenanted premises was let out for residential purpose to the petitioner orally in the year 1973 by the husband of the respondent, who was the owner and landlord of the property bearing No.147, Katra Mashru, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit premises”). After the death of the husband of the respondent in the year 1982, the respondent continued to receive rent from the petitioner. The respondent in the eviction petition stated that the petitioner had paid the rent up to 1st April, 2009 and thereafter stopped making payment of rent.

3. An eviction petition was filed by the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises stating therein that the respondent’s family which consists of herself, her son, son’s wife, two grand-daughters, one grand-son and other relatives of the respondent, are residing only in three rooms. It was further stated that one of her grand-daughters, namely, Priya Sharma who was pursuing C.A. (Final Year) (when the eviction petition was filed) intended to open her own office in the vicinity after completion of her C.A. course. It was stated that the tenanted premises was required bonafidely by the respondent for opening an office for her grand-daughter, and she had no other suitable alternative accommodation. It was also stated that her other grand-daughter, namely, Shefali Sharma was pursuing career in Company Secretaries and her grand-son was a student. The accommodation available with the respondent was not sufficient for their studies. Besides this, it was stated that the relatives of the respondent also used to visit her and stay with them.

4. It was averred in the eviction petition that the petitioner is not using the tenanted premises by himself and had given the same to one Sh. Anil Sharma who had been misusing the same for running a property dealer shop and for running the office of Akhil Bhartiya Swarankar Sangh. The said misuse had not been stopped by the petitioner despite the notice dated 25th May, 2011.

5. In the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, the ownership of the tenanted premises was disputed. It was stated that the tenanted premises was let out by the husband of the respondent as a caretaker/landlord of the tenanted premises which does not belong to her. It was averred that the tenanted premises was let out for commercial purposes. There is a shutter fitted on the main entrance of the suit premises for the last 25 years. The petitioner had started the business of property dealing therein since the very inception of tenancy. It was further alleged that the petitioner had started running the office of society namely Akhil Bhartiya Swarankar Sangh from the tenanted premises in the year 1999. As the petitioner has become old and is not keeping in good health, he entered into an agreement with Anil Sharma who became partner with him under the name and style of M/s Dogra Properties. It was stated that Sh. Anil Sharma is not the sub-letee of the petitioner but is a partner. The electricity and the water connection which were installed in the tenanted premises, as well as payment of property/house tax were in the name of M/s. Dogra Properties.

6. The allegation of default of payment in the rent was disputed by the petitioner who averred that the rent was being paid to either the respondent or her son, however, the son of the respondent failed to issue receipts from the year 2009 w