The burden of proof lies with the parties in a dispute, and failure to provide evidence to support claims can influence the court's decision.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the eviction order dated 31st January 2012 passed by ACJ-cum-ARC (North) Delhi in an eviction petition filed by the respondent in respect of shop no. 682, Pvt. No. 2-A, Katra Hira Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi- 10006 and Chabutra in front of the shop (hereinafter referred to as “the tenanted premises”).

2. The respondent in the eviction petition had stated that he is the owner of the suit premises and required the tenanted shop for running his whole sale cloth business and that he was not in use and occupation of any other suitable accommodation for his need. It was stated that in absence of the suitable accommodation, the respondent was compelled to run his business from his residence only which was not at all suitable as it is situated at the second floor of the property No.683/676 situated in Katra Hiral Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, having only two rooms in which he had to adjust his business as well as his residence. It was stated that the petitioner is an affluent businessman having multifarious business activities and also having other properties from which he is carrying on other businesses. Leave to defend was granted in the matter.

3. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, the title of the respondent to the tenanted premises was contested. It was contended by the petitioner that the residential address given by the respondent in support of his claim was incorrect and he denied that the respondent was carrying on his business activities from his residential premises. The petitioner gave particulars of various properties allegedly used by the respondent to carry out his business activities. The rent agreement executed by his father was denied by the petitioner. The petitioner also denied ownership to the properties mentioned by the respondent.

4. The respondent contested the averments made by the petitioner in the replication filed by him.

5. After the examination of witnesses, the learned trial court, pursuant to hearing the parties, passed the impugned eviction order against the petitioner. With regard to the issue of ownership, it was observed that while the petitioner had contended that respondent is not the owner of the tenanted shop, he had neither led any evidence in support of his contention nor mentioned who else is the owner of the tenanted shop. On the other hand, the respondent had filed and proved on record the copy of the sale deed executed in his favour. Since the relationship of landlord-tenant was not denied and payment of rent to the respondent was admitted by the petitioner, the learned trial court opined that the ground of ownership so alleged by the petitioner was just for the sake of defence without having any substance in it. With regard to the issue of bonafide requirement, it was observed by the learned trial court that except for his bare testimony alleging that respondent is the owner of various properties and carrying on his business there from, the petitioner had not led any other evidences. Relying on the evidence led by the parties in support of their contentions and settled law on this aspect, the learned trial court opined that the respondent was able to show his bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises for running his business, for the reasons stated therein. On the issue of availability of other reasonably suitable accommodation, it was observed that the petitioner in his cross examination admitted that he had made statements with regard to certain properties without seeing the papers and without ascertaining the same. The deposition of the petitioner in his cross-examination that the respondent is carrying on his business in the name of Nihal Textiles in all the properties mentioned in his affidavit was in the view of the learned trial court, beyond his pleadings as the name of the firm had not been