VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

R.C. Revision No. 242 of 2012 and C.M. Nos. 11866 of 2014 (for stay) & 11868 of 2014 (for bringing on record additional evidence/document)

2. There are tenants in the city of Delhi who earn lacs and lacs of rupees from the tenanted premises and obviously they are entitled to whatever amount they can from their business, but once the landlords need bona-fidely the tenanted premises, tenants cannot create obstacles to eviction, which efforts are obviously aided and supported by very passionate arguments of their counsel.

3. In the present case, the landlord requires the suit premises for the bona-fide commercial needs of his son who is doing a property consultant business and also for the bona-fide need of his daughter-in-law who is a management graduate and wants to open a boutique of ladies wear and for which purpose the suit premises, which are a huge premises of approximately 40’1.6” x 19’ in size on ground floor along-with the mezzanine floor (penchhatti) covering about 3/4th (27’8” x 19’10”) of the area of the shop, are ideally suited.

4. The bona-fide necessity petition has been decreed after trial. This revision is thereafter filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the judgment dated 3.1.2014 decreeing the petition.

5. In a petition for bona-fide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, three aspects are required to be pleaded and proved – (i) that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties (ii) the landlord requires the tenanted premises for his need and/or for the need of his family members, (iii) the landlord does not have any other alternative suitable premises.

6. So far as the aspect of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, that aspect was not disputed before the Additional Rent Controller and nor is disputed before this Court.

7. The main dispute is with respect to whether the landlord requires the tenanted premises for the bona-fide need of his son, who is a property consultant and also for the daughter-in-law who wants to open a ladies boutique.

8. The argument to rebut the claim of bona-fide necessity is that the son is already doing business with the father of sarees under the name of Siddha Sarees at a nearby premises bearing no. 41 (also numbered as 12), Bhogal Road, Delhi. It is also argued that the son Mr. Nitish Jain no doubt may have a property consultant business, but, that business has not increased so much that the larger area of the tenanted premises is required. It is further argued and contented that the landlord just about six months prior to filing of the eviction petition had given a notice dated 9.10.2012 to one tenant Sh. Ashok who is having a shop M/s. Ashoka Shoes Store admeasuring 16’ x 12.6’ and after giving of the notice since the tenant Sh. Ashok increased the rent from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 1500/- an eviction petition was not filed and that therefore this petition is filed only to seek increase in rent. In sum and substance, it is pleaded that the son Sh. Nitish Jain is also doing the business of sarees and therefore has no need for the tenanted premises, and also that the business of the property consultant of the son Sh. Nitish Jain has not increased so much that a larger premises such as the tenanted premises is required and finally it is pleaded that the eviction petition is not bona-fide because the shop to the tenant Sh. Ashok was not evicted by taking benefit of increasing the rent from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 1500/- and which shows that the present eviction petition is also only for seeking increase of the rent.

9. At the outset, I must notice one very peculiar aspect of this petition and which is with respect to the issue of bona-fide need of the daughter-in-law for opening of a boutique. The peculiar aspect is that whereas the respondent/landlord has undoubted