The landlord's genuine need for additional space for his business and the lack of alternative suitable accommodation are crucial factors in eviction cases under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

Najmi Waziri:

1. This revision petition filed under proviso to Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act’) impugns an order dated 13.02.2013 passed by Learned Additional Rent Controller, North-West: Rohini, Delhi whereby the present petitioner’s (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tenant’) application for leave to defend was rejected and an order of eviction was passed against him.

Brief Facts

2. The dispute arose with the present respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘landlord’) filing an eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act for evicting the tenant from Shop No. 2, Ground Floor, D-2/10, Model Town, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tenanted premises’) citing the ground of bona fide requirement. It was submitted that his father was the owner of the tenanted premises and had let out the same to the tenant; that after his father’s demise on 07.01.2007, he inherited the premises by virtue of his father’s will dated 23.01.1995.

3. Before the learned ARC, it was the case of the landlord that he is already in possession of shop no.1, which is adjacent to the tenanted premises and is carrying on the business of artificial jewellery; that the said shop no.1 is not enough as per his requirement and he needs the tenanted premises for himself and his two sons who are graduates, so as to expand his present business; that the requirement of the tenanted premises is bona fide and urgent.

4. An application for leave to defend was filed by the tenant contending that the landlord was not the owner of the tenanted premises since the aforesaid will has not been probated; that alternate accommodation was available with the landlord; that the need of the landlord was not bona fide as both his sons were employed and residing outside Delhi and his wife was employed with Allahabad Bank; that the need of the petitioner was for a commercial shop and therefore, would not fall within the ambit of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.

5. In his reply, the landlord refuted the averments of the tenant. It was submitted that his family income was not sufficient and that his elder son was compelled to work temporarily in a bank in Gujarat and his younger son, residing with him was compelled to take up employment at Noida. It was also submitted that after getting the tenanted premises, both the sons would join him in the business of trading in artificial jewellery.

6. A rejoinder to the aforesaid reply was filed by the tenant where he reaffirmed the contents of his application for leave to defend.

Impugned Order

7. The learned ARC, after considering the contentions of the parties, dismissed the tenant’s application for leave to defend and passed an eviction order in favour of the landlord. Learned ARC’s reasoning were as follows:

a. Ownership- Learned ARC dismissed the tenant’s contention that as the Will dated 23.1.1995 has not been granted probate by a competent court, the same cannot be considered as proof of the landlord’s ownership of the tenanted premises. It was held that because the Will has not been granted probate, the same would not operate as an impediment to its operation. It was also held that a Will cannot be challenged and its validity cannot be a adjudicated by a Rent Controller during adjudication of an eviction petition. It was noted that the original Will, registered under the Registration Act was placed on record by the landlord.

b. Alternative accommodation- Learned ARC rejected the tenant’s contention as to the existence of alternative suitable accommodation with the landlord. It was observed that the tenant’s vague averments as to existence of alternative residential accommodation with the landlord would not entail him leave to defend the eviction petition. It was also observed that the need of the landlord for the tenanted premises was for commercial purposes and there was no averment by the tenant in his application for leave to defend as to the possession of alternat