The main legal point established in the judgment is the genuine and bona fide requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, emphasizing the landlord's prerogative to determine the suitability of available space for his family members.

Najmi Waziri, J.

1. The revision petition impugns an order dated 13.03.2012 whereby respondent/tenant has been granted leave to defend in an eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

2. The petitioner had sought eviction of the tenant from the suit property being a shop located on the ground floor measuring 9 X 13 feet forming a part of the property C-130, Amar Colony, East Gokul Pur, Delhi-110 094 which was leased out at a monthly rent of Rs. 1300/-. The petitioner’s case was that his family consisted of 6 members which included his wife, one son aged about 10 years, three married daughters and an old and ailing mother of 95 years of age. He stated that his relatives, guests and other visitors used to come to his residence for stay during medical treatment and during other social requirements and engagements too and that the accommodation available with him comprising two rooms on the ground floor with covered courtyard, one latrine, one bathroom and a kitchen was insufficient for his needs; that the source of his livelihood was the rent being collected from his various tenants; that he required a separate room for his school going son so that the child’s studies were not disturbed by all-so-frequent visitors; that his aged and ailing mother too required a separate room; that the petitioner and his wife also required one room for themselves; that another room was required for guests, relatives and his three married daughters and their respective families whenever they visited him; that first and second floors were not convenient for his ailing mother; that the petitioner/landlord had no other suitable accommodation on the ground floor except the one occupied by the respondent/tenant, hence the tenanted premises required to be vacated forthwith for his multiple bonafide need, particularly for his mother.

3. Pursuant to a notice dated 11.6.2011 under section 25-B of the Act, the tenant filed an application for leave to defend on 1.7.2011. The tenant stated that he was running a business of transportation in the name and style of Balaji Tempo Transport Services from the tenanted premises since the year 2000; that he had been paying rent regularly, but the petitioner was not issuing any rent receipt to him; that initially the rent was Rs.750/- p.m. but, then it increased to Rs.1300/- p.m.; that he had sent rent for three months i.e. from July, 2011 to September, 2011 to the landlord through money order but the latter refused to accept it as well as the electricity charges simply to create a confusion and dispute regarding supply of electricity to rented shop; that eviction of commercial property was being sought for residential purposes which was impermissible; that the two floors above the ground floor were sufficient to accommodate the needs of the landlord, if any; that the landlord himself was running businesses of a confectionary shop and property dealing viz. Gupta Properties from a shop on the ground floor; additionally he had rented out two other shops on the ground floor, while the residential area behind the two shops was rented out to the tenant and his family; that the entire area of first floor as well as second floor had been let out for commercial use; that the three daughters were settled in their matrimonial homes hence they did not require any space to reside with the landlord; that the mother of the petitioner being a permanent resident at her native place, did not require any accommodation with the petitioner; that the landlord owns flat No. A-6085, Ground Floor, Gali No. 1, East Rohtash Nagar, Delhi-32 in the name of his wife and the same has been let out for tenancy and hence the petitioner possessed much more residential accommodation than what he required. Furthermore, it was argued that the petitioner had other properties in his name as well as in the name of his wife and he had good earnings from the busin