The landlord-tenant relationship, bona fide requirement, and the landlord's right to use the property as deemed fit were central legal principles in the judgment.

V.K. Shali, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed against the order dated 26.03.2015, by virtue of which, the learned ARC-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi had allowed the eviction petition filed by the Respondent/landlord on merits.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord had filed an eviction petition against the petitioners/tenants for recovery of possession in respect of tenanted premises i.e. one shop on the ground floor of 4087, Nai Sadak adjacent Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006. The said premises were stated to be required bona fide the respondent’s son Dr. Jaideep Rohatgi, his grandson, Vaibhav Rohatgi and his granddaughter-in-law, Pallavi Rohatgi who were all doctors. It was stated that they were facing scarcity of accommodation for the purpose of attending their patients. The respondent has explained in the petition the different usages of the portion of the building under their occupation and as to how they intend to use the accommodation if vacated by the petitioner. In this regard, it was specifically stated that there is no provision for x-ray or medical bed/table on the ground floor of the suit premises for attending patients with fractures or with accidental injuries and therefore, the tenanted shop being situated on the ground floor is most suitable for setting up these facilities.

3. It was also stated, that if the possession of tenanted shop is retrieved, then same can be alternatively used for shifting of some facility from back portion to the front portion. The portion so vacated could be used for installing a lift in the rear portion of the suit property, as the upper floors were not being properly utilized due to non-availability of lift. It was also averred that the petitioner/tenant had sub-let the tenanted shop to one M/s Gupta Stationary Mart without the written consent or permission of the respondent/landlord.

4. The petitioners/tenants on being served filed their leave to defend application wherein they contended that the requirement of respondent/landlord is not bona fide since the deceased respondent/landlord Dr. Brij Mohan was 90 years old and was practicing from his residence at Defence Colony. It was stated that Jaideep Rohatgi was practicing from 4088, Nai Sarak and Vaibhav Rohatgi was employed at Safdarjang Hospital and Pallavi Rohatgi was still studying medicine and was currently working as an apprentice in Aggarsain Hospital and therefore they did not require the tenanted shop which measured only 71/2 X 15 Sq. ft.

5. It was also contended that two rooms on the ground floor as well as on first and second floor of the suit property are lying vacant which are in possession of the respondent/landlord. The respondent/landlord was stated to be in possession of sufficient alternate accommodation i.e. a hospital constructed in an area of 800 sq. yards at DDA Community Centre, Zamrudpur, Kailash Colony, Delhi. Apart from this, it was also averred that the respondent has properties in Okhla Industrial Area, NOIDA, Paharganj and at Mathura Road but details of these properties were not given. It was also stated that the respondent is getting huge amount of money as rentals from these different properties in Okhla, Mohan Singh Industrial area and Chandni Chowk and thus it was urged that he could arrange his requirement without seeking his eviction.

6. The petitioner also stated that the respondent had earlier filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) which was dismissed upto High Court and that the present petition has been filed with a mala fide intention of selling the suit property after getting the tenanted shop vacated by the petitioner.

7. In replication the respondent/landlord, denied all the averments made in the written statement.

8. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-

(i) Whether the applicant is the owner of the premises?

(ii) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?

(iii) Wh