MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the impugned decision dated 16th September, 2013 passed by the learned ARC is identical except that in RC.REV. 392/2013 “Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd.” is the tenant of the petitioner for first and second floor and roof rights and in RC.REV. 394/2013 “Bimla Devi and Ors.” are the tenants in respect of basement, ground floor and garage of the petitioner in suit property bearing No.A-7, Green Park, New Delhi.

2. A brief exposition of facts is that the Petitioner filed two eviction petitions being Eviction No.11/09 and Eviction No.10/09 under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act stating that he was the owner/landlord of the suit property which was built by his father Sardar Sarjeet Singh Koghar (since deceased), who had bought the piece of land from Shri Udhe Singh Gahunia vide sale deed dated 6th November, 1963 which was duly registered on 13th November, 1963. The suit property comprises of a building on A-7, Green Park Main, New Delhi which was let out to the respondents by the petitioner’s father through his then General Power of Attorney Shri Ram Prakash Lakra (now deceased). The father of the petitioner died leaving behind the petitioner as his son, heir and legal representative and thus after the death of Sardar Sarjeet Singh, the respondents/tenants attorned to the petitioner as their landlord. Though the suit property was let out for commercial purposes, however the same is a residential unit and can be easily and conveniently used for residential purposes. The petitioner is a non-resident Indian and settled in Thailand doing business. The petitioner needed the suit property as the petitioner and his family members have decided to set up their own residence in Delhi, particularly due to the fact that they were setting up business in Delhi. As both the counsels have based their arguments on the requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) on the basis of the pleadings in the eviction petition it would be relevant to note down paragraphs vi, vii & viii of the eviction petition as under:

vi) Recently, the petitioner has acquired specialized knowledge of processing of oil, particularly used turbine oil and that too “online” (i.e. without stopping the turbines generating electrical energy). The petitioner and/or his private limited company have been negotiating with the various Corporations and Companies (both under the Public Sector as well as the private sector) for reprocessing the same (then and there). The negotiations are in progress (at an advanced stage), as this will result in substantial savings for these electricity “generating” companies. Necessarily, the petitioner has been contemplating to set up his residence and his own office at Delhi so as to advance his business prospects in India. To set up the said business successfully here in India, the petitioner has necessarily to reside here till things are set up and the functioning is made smooth. vii) In furtherance of his plans to settle in India and set up business here, the petitioner has also acquired by allotment from the NOIDA authority a plot and parcel of land ad-measuring 2,100 square meters for setting up an appropriate industry here. The petitioner has been paying the installments of the aforesaid plot regularly and this industrial unit is also likely to be commissioned soon. In this case also, when actually setting up the industrial unit here, the petitioner will necessarily have to stay/ live here (to supervise actual execution of works and also to conserve costs).

viii) It is also of much relevance to add that in order to liaison with the officials concerned (for both the projects) the petitioner has been visiting India from Thailand nearly once a month and due to non-availability of residential accommodation is constrained to stay in a Hotel. The recent happenings in the Hotels at Mumbai has constrained the petitioner to think of alternatives and/or alternate accommodation(s). As such