The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of subletting and the landlord's bonafide requirement under the Delhi Rent Control Act, influencing the court's decision in a tenancy dispute.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Since the facts in the present petitions are common the petitions are being disposed of by a common order. Vipin Kalra became the owner of suit property No. II-D/33, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi 110024 in the year 2003. In the said property Dr. K.B. Watts was a tenant in respect of one shop measuring 22’ x 7’-6” at a monthly rent of Rs. 330/- per month on the ground floor. Two eviction petitions were filed by Vipin Kalra one being Eviction petition No. E-96/09 on 5th August, 2004 under Section 14(1)(b) DRC Act and the other on 24th October, 2008 being eviction petition No. 97/09 under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

2. The eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) DRC Act was dismissed by the learned ARC vide its judgment dated 29th March, 2011 which was challenged by Vipin Kalra before the Rent Control Tribunal and was allowed in favour of Vipin Kalra vide the judgment dated 1st March, 2012. Hence Dr. K.B.Watts preferred CM(M)390/2012 against the order of the District Judge (South)-cum-Rent Control Tribunal dated 1st March, 2012 in Eviction Petition No. 96/09. Eviction petition No.97/09 filed by Vipin Kalra under Section 14(1)(e) was allowed in his favour vide the judgment dated 4th March, 2011 against which a review petition was filed before the learned ARC by Dr. K.B. Watts which was dismissed vide order dated 5th June, 2012. Hence the orders dated 4th March, 2011 and 5th June, 2012 passed by the learned ARC in Eviction petition No. 97/09 are challenged by Dr. K.B. Watts in RC.REV.329/2012. During the pendency of the present proceedings Dr. K.B. Watts passed away and his legal heirs have been brought on record.

CM(M) 390/2012 & CMs. 6037/2012, 5947/2014

3. In Eviction petition No. 96/09 Vipin Kalra stated that Dr. K.B. Watts had been running a dental clinic in the tenanted premises however now due to his old age, illness and paralytic attack he was not running the clinic and that the tenanted premises has been sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with by Dr. K.B. Watts to his son Mr. Ashok Watts and daughter-in-law Radhika Watts. It was further stated that the possession of the shop had been given by Dr. K.B. Watts to his son and daughter-in-law without the written consent of Vipin Kalra.

4. In the written statement Dr. K.B. Watts denied the fact and stated that he was running his dental clinic himself since the inception of his tenancy and the same was in his actual, legal and physical possession. He had not sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with his clinic to his son or his daughter-in-law and they were working in the clinic under his guidance and not independently. Dr. K.B. Watts appeared as RW1 and deposed on the lines as stated by him in the written statement. He further stated that his son and daughter-in-law were staying with him as members of his family. He further stated that except for a brief period when he suffered a paralytic attack, the dental clinic was run by him and even during that period his son and daughter-in-law were running the clinic as junior doctors. In cross-examination he admitted that a suit was filed by his son Dr. Ashok Watts and that Dr. Ashok Watts was living with his family at 7/1 Pant Nagar, New Delhi and Dr. K.B. Watts was living with his wife at Jangpura. He admitted that the board installed on the premises depict the name of Dr. Ashok Watts and that he has opened an account and made the license at the address of the tenanted premises.

5. Dr. K.B. Watts also examined one Bahadur Singh as RW-1 who was his patient who deposed that Dr. K.B. Watts was residing in property bearing No. 1, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi with his family and elder son’s family and the younger son of Dr. Watts was residing in Jangpura extension. Dr. Watts surrendered the tenancy in respect of the property at Kasturba Gandhi Marg in April 2007 and shifted to Jangpura extension at H.No. C-45. Bahadur Singh was visiting Dr. K.B. Watts at the tenanted premises for treatment and the tenanted premise