The central legal point established is that subsequent events can only be considered in determining bonafide necessity if they totally eclipse the need of the landlord.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is filed challenging the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 08.11.2012 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition with respect to the suit/tenanted premises being one shop on the ground floor of property no.509, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi – 32.

2. In a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, there are three requirements which have to be seen. Firstly, it is to be shown that the petitioner who has filed the eviction petition is the owner/landlord of the premises, secondly, it has to be shown that the tenanted premises are required bonafidely for the need of the landlord and/or his family members, thirdly, it is to be seen whether the landlord has any other alternative suitable accommodation.

3. Before me in the present case the only issue which is argued, and therefore has to be considered by this Court, is that whether the respondent/landlady has alternative suitable premises from where the business as stated in the eviction petition can be carried out.

4. The eviction petition which has been filed by the respondent/landlady states that there are a total of three shops in the property, of which one shop is in tenancy with the present petitioner. Out of the two remaining shops, one was in the possession of the daughter of the respondent/landlady and who was running the business of a gift shop called M/s Janavi Gift World. In the other shop which belonged to the husband of the respondent/landlady, the husband was carrying on his business of spices in the name of M/s Subhash Masala Store. The bonafide necessity eviction petition was filed by the respondent/landlady stating that her son Sh.Manish Gupta was helping his father (landlady’s husband) in the masala business, but the son needed to open his own independent business because the son Sh.Manish Gupta was married and had children. The issue therefore which arose is that whether the respondent/landlady had alternative suitable premises from where the son Sh. Manish Gupta could carry on his business.

5. (i) The petitioner/tenant after filing the leave to defend application filed an additional affidavit stating that the respondent/landlady owned a property bearing no.336, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi – 32 and from which property, the son Sh.Manish Gupta can carry on his business.

(ii) Learned counsel for the respondent in response has argued that this plea not only cannot be legally looked into, but factually also this plea is absolutely without substance because the property no.336 is a residential property whereas the need of the son Sh.Manish Gupta is for opening of a shop for carrying on masala business.

(iii) Learned counsel for the respondent/landlady is right in arguing that the plea taken in the additional affidavit with respect to the respondent/landlady having the property no.336 at Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi cannot be looked into because now it is settled law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 that there cannot be condonation of delay of even one day in filing of the leave to defend application i.e. after a period of 15 days, no fresh affidavit or documents can be considered for granting leave to defend and leave to defend issue can only be considered with respect to the averments, documents etc which are made within the statutory period of 15 days prescribed for filing of the leave to defend application. As per the ratio of Prithipal Singh’s case (supra), which holds that 15 days period is an inflexible and mandatory period, therefore, beyond the prescribed period of 15 days, no additional facts or affidavit can be considered for considering the issue of grant of leave to defend. It is on the b