The landlord's requirement for premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act must be bona fide, and the tenant's defense must raise a triable issue to warrant leave to defend.

CAV 1010/2016

Since the counsel for the respondent has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged.

CM No. 44308/2016 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

RC.REV. 567/2016 and CM No. 44307/2016 (u/O 41 R 5 CPC)

1. The present revision petition is filed under Section 25 B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the “DRC Act”) to impugn the eviction order dated 10.06.2016 under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC).

2. The petitioners are the tenants of a shop comprising of ground floor and mezzanine floor in property No. 367/III, Katra Hussian Bux, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 at a rent of Rs. 427/-per month. It is the contention of the respondent in the eviction petition that he does not have any other property in his name for running a business. The respondent is said to be in private employment and wants to start his own independent business from the tenanted premises. The said premises is the most suitable accommodation as it is on the ground floor and the respondent can call and attract his customers and passersby. The premises is situated in the heart of the city which is the biggest wholesale market of Asia known as Khari Baoli. It is urged that because of inflation, it is not possible for the respondent to provide better nourishment to his family members in his meager income. It is further urged that the petitioners are having various accommodations from where they are running their business activities and the tenanted premises is a luxury for the petitioners. He has also submitted that he has one shop which was earlier under the tenancy of Ms.Anchal Mittal who has recently vacated the same. It is submitted that the said shop is being used by the wife of the respondent for her own business. It is further stated that the tenanted premises is much bigger than the shop occupied by Ms.Anchal Mittal and hence, more suitable for the business of the respondent.

3. The petitioners filed their application under Section 25(B)(4) & (5) of the DRC Act seeking leave to contest the eviction petition. Various pleas were raised in the said application by the petitioner including as follows:-

(i) That the respondent does not require the tenanted shop for carrying on any business for himself or for his wife. The family of the respondent consists of only himself, his wife and his minor daughter.

(ii) The wife of the respondent has never carried on any business and neither the respondent nor his wife has any experience to carry on any commercial work or business. Even the nature of the business or commercial work which the respondent seeks to start is not mentioned. Hence, it is wrongly stated that the respondent requires the tenanted premises for carrying on commercial work/business.

(iii) The respondent is already in the business of real estate. He has been working as a middle man in selling-cum-purchasing and letting immovable properties and is earning handsomely and hence, the respondent does not require the shop.

(iv) The respondent has already sold one shop which is situated adjoining to the tenanted premises to Ms.Veena Jain. Another big hall situated on the on the first floor of the property has also been sold.

(v) The only object of the respondent is to rent out the tenanted shop and the big commercial hall situated on the mezzanine floor at a higher rate of rent or to sell the same.

4. The ARC by the impugned order noted that there is no substantial dispute raised by the petitioners on the issue of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. The submission of the petitioner about the inexperience in carrying on business by the respondent or his wife or that they have not disclosed the nature of business or work which they seek to start was rejected relying upon various judgments including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Babu Aggarwal vs. Jay Kishan, 2009 (2) RCR 455. The plea of the petitioner regarding the