The central legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's need to prove bonafide need and lack of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation under the Delhi Rent Control Act to succeed in an eviction petition.

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2015 wherein the eviction petition filed by the landlord (Motilal Banarsi Dass) against the petitioner tenant (British Springs Company) from the suit property i.e. Shop No.2, 41, U.A. Bungalow Road, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi decreed in favour of the landlord. The tenant is aggrieved by this finding. The application seeking leave to defend had been dismissed.

2. The eviction petition discloses that the landlord is the owner of the suit property. There is no dispute to this position. In fact the landlord-relationship stands admitted. Further averment in the eviction petition is that the suit property had been let out to the tenant in the year 1960 for a monthly rent of Rs.55/-. The landlord’s firm is a registered firm. The business of the firm is being carried out from the adjacent area i.e. the area adjacent to the disputed premises. They are running a book store from the aforenoted premises. Over the years, their business has grown and the number of books in the showroom of the landlord has increased; the space presently available with the landlord is insufficient to accommodate the entire books and the clientele which has built up in the course of this business also has to be accommodated. This business has spread on a national level. The number of visitors and customers of the showroom and the clients of the landlord having increased; on some occasions, there is hardly any space to stand let alone to sit. The manpower has also increased. Because of the paucity of space, cleanliness is difficult to maintain. Children of the partners of the petitioner firm have also grown and they have also joined this business activity. The petitioner needs the space which is presently tenanted out for the better commercial viability of his business as the petitioner needs to expand the front frontage by adding the demised premises to the aforenoted premises which are already in possession of the landlord whereby the front opening of the shop would substantially expand. Attention has been drawn to the site plan to substantiate this submission.

3. An application seeking leave to defend was filed by the tenant. The foremost triable issue sought to be raised and canvassed before this Court is to the effect that another shop which is also in the same line as that of the firm of the landlord and which is also owned by the landlord has just recently been let out i.e. in the year 2014 (during the pendency of the eviction petition) at a higher rent and had the need of the petitioner being bonafide and genuine, he would not have rented out that property. Attention has been drawn to certain photographs to support this submission. On a specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submits that all these subsequent facts had come to the knowledge of the tenant later on yet the Trial Court had allowed the prayer made by the tenant seeking to place on record this additional fact and this order had been passed by the Trial Court on 13.10.2014. The photographs substantiating this submission had also been taken on record. The new tenant in this shop is Yishion; submission being that the petitioner is thus precluded from building up a case that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. Triable issues have arisen. Leave to defend should have been granted in favour of the tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon AIR 1987 SC 741 Amarjit Singh Vs. Smt. Khatoon Quamarain, 2015 V AD (Delhi) 91 Rampat Vs. Ganga Devi and (2015) 2 SCC 158 Shanti Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jain And Another. Submission being reiterated that where a prima-facie case is built up by the tenant showing that he has an arguable ground, the Court declining to grant leave to defend has committed an illegality.

4. Per contra, in reply, the learned counsel for the landlord submits that the shop which had been let out to the Yishion is admittedly not contiguous a