Najmi Waziri, J.

This petition impugns an eviction order dated 31.3.2012, which rejected the petitioner/tenant’s application seeking leave to defend the respondents/landlords’ eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’). The eviction order has been passed against the petitioner apropos the tenanted premises WZ-1/A/19, Ground Floor, Village Tatarpur, New Delhi-110027, admeasuring 11ft X 9ft. The admitted rent was Rs.1,200/- per month. The landlord sought the eviction on the ground that his grandson required the property to start his own business and that the landlord had no property, other than the suit property from where he could run his business. The tenant, however, contended that there was no need, much less, a bona fide need since the landlord had other shops lying vacant and could put them to use. He further submits that the petition has been filed only to harass the tenant to pay a higher monthly rent. The learned counsel for the tenant states that the landlord was in possession of two other shops but had concealed these facts in the eviction petition. It is also argued that the site plan was not a correct reflection of the tenanted premises nor had the two vacant shops been indicated in it; that the landlord’s grandson was not dependent upon him for the tenanted premises since the latter was gainfully occupied and earning his livelihood elsewhere and in any case the said grandson was no longer a part of the family of the landlord; that some time earlier the landlord had chosen to sell a room which was available to him, therefore, it is evident that if the landlord actually required additional space he would not have sold out the room.

The learned counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, has refuted these arguments by stating that the grandson was very much a part of his family and was dependent upon him.

Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court found that the two shops referred to by the tenant did not fall into his share but in the share of the brother of the landlord, hence, they could not be considered as suitable alternate accommodation being available to the landlord. The Trial Court held that the tenant had no locus to question the family terms of the landlord and his family members. All that the tenant can and is required to do is to show that the landlord had other properties which could be put to use. The Trial Court relied upon Mohd. Usman Vs. Siraj Ahmed (2008) 154 DLT 342 and Bharat Bhushan Vij Vs. Arti Teckchandani (2008) 153 DLT 247, which held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the tenant cannot dictate in what manner the landlord should utilise his properties. The Trial Court found that the sale of the room was about two years prior to the filing of the eviction petition. Whatever be the need, prudence or occasion to sell the aforesaid room and that too over two years ago cannot be questioned by the tenant or looked into by the Court. Much can happen or change in two years time. The Trial Court further held that the grandson could well be dependent upon the landlord since dependency is not based upon financial means but upon the lack of accommodation. The Court relied upon Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. Swadesh Bhushan Gupta 152 (2008) DLT 556 to elucidate that such an argument cannot be taken by a person who is not a member of the family of the landlord.

The Court further referred to Om Prakash Bajaj Vs. Chander Shekhar (2003) 1 RCR (Rent) 332 to show the members who would fall within the definition of dependent as mentioned in the Act. Upon an analysis, the Trial Court held that the grandson fell within the definition of dependent.

The argument of the tenant’s relative hardship cannot be countenanced in view of the settled law on the subject. The Trial Court rejected the tenant’s argument that there was no need for the premises since the grandson lacked the quali