The judgment establishes the importance of the bonafide requirement of the landlord and the duty of the controller to grant leave to defend if triable issues are raised.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has assailed the eviction order dated 29th November, 2012 passed by Additional Rent Controller, West Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of a shop situated at the ground floor of property bearing No.11/21, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi- 110008 (hereinafter referred to as “the tenanted shop”). It was contended that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by Late Sh. Kishan Chand i.e. father of the respondent No.1 and father in-law of the respondent No.2 way back in 1951 in respect of the tenanted shop. After the death of Late Sh. Kishan Chand, the property bearing No.11/21, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi- 110008 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) was mutated in favour of the respondents and consequently the petitioner started paying rent of the tenanted shop to the respondent No.1.

3. The respondents filed the eviction petition stating that they bonafidely require the tenanted shop so that both the sons of the respondents can run their own independent business and can earn a good income in order to meet their independent family needs. It was stated that the respondents’ family consists of respondents’, their two married sons having two children each, and a married daughter, settled in her matrimonial home. The respondents alongwith the married sons and their children are said to be residing on the first floor of the suit property.

4. It was stated that the respondent no.1 and his two sons run a shop in the name and style of M/s. Ahuja Sons and are engaged in the business of sale of paint, hardware and sanitary items on the ground floor of the suit property and just adjacent to the tenanted shop. The said shop is stated to be the only source of livelihood for the entire family of the respondents.

5. The petitioner was stated to be running a shop in the name and style of M/s Sanjay Medical Store. It was contended that the respondents do not have any commercial property/shop which could be used and occupied for the purpose of running the shop for the sons of the respondents and the tenanted shop, being situated at the ground floor of the suit property was more suitable to meet out the bonafide need and requirement of the respondents.

6. In the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner averred that the eviction petition was filed by the respondents with malafide intention as they did not require bonafidely the small tenanted shop admeasuring 10x15 ft. it was averred that there was no cause of action in favour of the respondents as the suit property itself was stated to be admeasuring 1650 sq. ft. and on the ground floor, commercial activities are being carried on by the respondent No.1 alongwith his two sons. It was contended that since the respondent No.1 is about 82 years old, he does not sit in the said shop and that the said shop is being run by the two sons of the respondents. It was further stated that the respondent No.2 is a housewife and does not carry any commercial activities. It was averred that the respondents had concealed material fact from the Court that the respondents and their sons own various other properties in Patel Nagar itself and other places, list of which was given.

7. In the reply to the leave to defend application, the respondents denied and contested the averments made by the petitioner and reiterated their stand taken in the petition. The ownership with regard to other properties was explained in the reply. In the rejoinder to the reply of the leave to defend application it was prayed that the eviction petition be dismissed on the ground that the affidavit had not been signed, verified and filed accordingly to the Rules in this regard and also that the respondents had not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the