The rule of estoppel preventing the tenant from denying the title of the landlord and the wider concept of 'dependency' under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The petitioner before this Court is Suresh Chand Jain. He claims himself to the owner and the landlord in all the aforenoted three petitions. Two of the suit properties have been tenanted out to a tenant namely Godavari Devi Jeswani & Others. The third tenant is Rajender Kumar and another. The suit premises qua the tenancy of Godavari Devi Jeswani & Others is shop Nos. 3911 & 3912, Gali Barna, SAdar Bazar, Delhi-110006. The third tenanted shop i.e. qua the third tenant Rajender Kumar is shop No.3910 forming part of the same property i.e. Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. A perusal of the site plan in fact shows that all these three shops are adjacent and adjoining one another. All of them face a front façade i.e. a road measuring 25.6 feet.

2. On 14.10.2014, vide two impugned judgments, leave to defend had been granted to the tenant Godavari Devi Jeswani & Others qua the shop Nos.3911 & 3912. The Trial Court was of the view that triable issues have arisen. The third judgment is the judgment dated 10.03.2015. In this case also, the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) was of the view that the triable issues have arisen and leave to defend had been granted qua shop No. 3910 as well.

3. The first two petitions i.e. the petitions qua the tenancy of Godavari Devi Jeswani & Others were heard and reserved for orders. The third petition i.e. qua the tenancy of Rajender Kumar and Another was heard at a later date but also reserved for orders. All these three petitions shall now be decided by this common judgment.

4. The landlord Suresh Chand Jain has made common averments in all the three eviction petitions. In C.M. (M) No.1116/2014, the shop No. is 3912. It is a non-residential property. The need of the landlord has been described in para 18. The landlord has stated that he is the owner of the suit premises. The same has been let out to the respondent-tenant for non-residential purposes. It is bonafide required by the petitioner for running business of sanitary ware/tiles by his son. Submission being that apart from shop No. 3912, he also requires the adjoining and adjacent shops i.e. shops No.3910 & 3911 as also a portion of property bearing No.3908 (at the back side) for running the business which his son is already doing from Mangol Puri but being a rented accommodation at Mangol Puri, he now wants the present premises from which he wishes to carry out his business. Submission being that the petitioner has two sons namely Nitesh Jain and Nikesh Jain. These premises are required for his elder son Nitesh Jain aged 36 years and as noted supra, he is already running a shop of sale of tiles and sanitary-ware from a rented accommodation at 70/1/1, Marble Market, Mangolpuri Kalan, Rohini Delhi. He is carrying out this business for the last several years. It is under the name and style of M/s Vardhman Tiles. That shop has been taken on rent at a rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. A godown has also been taken for the purpose of storage for which a monthly rent of Rs.9,500/- is being paid. Tehse rented premises at Mangol Puri from where his elder son is carrying out his business is about 16 kilometeres away from Sadar Bazar where the parties are residing. The landlord and his family including his son Nitesh Jain are living in property bearing No. 3760-61, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The present property i.e. shop No. 3912 when co-joined with the other shops No. 3910 & 3911 (for which separate eviction petitions have been filed) would enable the son of the petitioner to have an area of about 800-900 square feet which would be adequate for the purpose of carrying on his business. Shop No. 3908 (for which a separate eviction petition has also been filed) which is on the backside would be suitable for storage purposes. The son of the petitioner is presently carrying on his business from the rented accommodation which beside the fact is far from his place of residence, even otherwise is not suitable as the area is much s