The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement for eviction must be bona-fide and not tainted with any oblique motive, and the landlord must prove the genuine need for the premises.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present Revision Petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act to impugn the order dated 1.7.2016 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in a petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 whereby an eviction order has been passed against the petitioner for premises i.e. one godown bearing private No. 5 on the ground floor of property bearing No. 2646, Gali Raghunandan, Naya Bazar, Delhi.

2. The respondent herein filed the present Eviction Petition on the grounds of bona-fide requirement of the respondent. It was averred that the respondent is the landlady of half portion of the premises. It was stated that her family consists of herself, her three sons including Shri Yogendra Pal Sharma a practicing advocate and one daughter. Shri Yogendra Pal Sharma has three children i.e. two married daughters and one son who is a graduate. It was stated that Shri Yogendra Pal Sharma and the other son Shri Sanjay Sharma are dependent upon the respondent for residential/commercial purpose. Respondent and her family members are in possession of five rooms out of which two are on the first floor and three on the second floor and the barsati on the third floor of the property in which the tenanted premises are situated. It was further stated that the tenanted premises is required by her son Shri Yogendra Pal Sharma who is a practicing Advocate for his office purpose and that he has no accommodation for office purpose anywhere in Delhi. It was stated that the said accommodation is also required by her grandson Shri Varun Sharma to start his business.

3. The petitioners entered appearance and filed an application seeking leave to contest under section 25(B)(5) of the DRC Act. It was pointed out that the petitioner is involved in wholesale Dry Fruit business having their shop at Katra Ishwar Bhawan but the tenanted premises is a godown and that the petitioners do not have any other godown in their possession. It was further stated that the son of the respondent Shri Yogendra Pal Sharma is a practicing Advocate since 1980 and is having a roaring practice since last 35 years. Hence, it was urged that the need of the respondent is neither real nor genuine and a mere pretext to evict the petitioner.

4. The ARC by the impugned order noted that the relationship of landlord tenant has not been disputed. On the issue of bona-fide requirement the submission of the petitioner that the said Shri Yogendra Pal Sharma has a roaring practice for the last 35 years was noted. It was also noted that merely because he has a strong practice would not mean that he would not need a proper office for expansion of his professional practice. Appropriate space for meeting the clients, keeping law books, computer etc. would be necessary. There was nothing on record placed by the petitioner to show that any other alterative accommodation/commercial accommodation was available to Shri Yogendra Pal Sharma for using as an office. Hence, the ARC concluded that the respondents have made out a case of bona-fide requirement.

5. On the availability of alternative suitable accommodation the ARC noted that as per the petitioner the respondent has several godowns/shops under their ownership which has been concealed. The ARC noted that the respondent has placed on record counterfoil of the rent receipts to show that all the godowns and shops in her premises are let out to different tenants and none of them are lying vacant. It was also noted that the petitioner has not been able to show which shop/godown on the ground floor of the premises is lying vacant and can be used by the son of the respondent. Hence, the ARC dismissed the application of the petitioner for grant of leave to defend and passed the necessary eviction order.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strongly submitted that the son of the respondent Shri Yogendra Pal Sharma is an Advocate for the last 35