The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tenant is not entitled to dictate terms to the landlord and his family members, and the concept of 'member of the family' in the grounds of eviction provided under the Rent laws must be understood and interpreted in the Indian context.

1. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order (dated 17th November, 2015 in Case No.E-450/13/12 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller-1 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) granting leave to the respondent to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the petitioner.

2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof ordered to be issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned.

3. Owing to the Trial Court record having been requisitioned in this Court, further proceedings in the petition for eviction pursuant to grant of leave to defend also remain stalled for the last more than 1 ½ years.

4. The counsels have been heard.

5. The petitioner/landlord instituted the petition for eviction of the respondent/tenant from one godown on ground floor bearing private no.01, Municipal No.1728-1729, Mangal Building no.1, Ram Gali, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006 in the tenancy of the respondent/tenant for the last several decades at a rent of Rs.312.76p per month, pleading, (i) that the premises in the tenancy of the respondent/tenant are required by the petitioner/landlord for his bona fide need; (ii) that there is no other vacant commercial premises available to the petitioner/landlord; (iii) that the granddaughter of the petitioner/landlord had completed her MBBS and wants to open her own Clinic-cum-Diagnostic Centre; (iv) the premises in the tenancy of the respondent/tenant are suitable for establishing a Clinic-cum-Diagnostic Centre; (v) even otherwise it is commercially viable to open a Clinic-cum-Diagnostic Centre in the said locality; and, (vi) that the documents regarding educational qualification of the granddaughter of the petitioner/landlord were filed along with the petition for eviction.

6. The respondent/tenant applied for leave to defend pleading (i) that the petitioner/landlord had fabricated the ground of eviction; (ii) that the petitioner/landlord had failed to disclose other places available to the petitioner/landlord and as to why those places are not available to the petitioner/landlord; (iii) that the petitioner/landlord is also owner of other properties which are not disclosed; (iv) that the petition for eviction was not bona fide and the petitioner/landlord had no bona fide requirement; (v) that the tenancy premises are situated at such a place which cannot be suitable for any girl or lady to run any medical clinic; (vi) denying that the petitioner/landlord had any bona fide requirement or that no other premises was available to the granddaughter of the petitioner/landlord; (vii) that the petitioner/landlord had not given any details of his family and the petition for eviction was lacking in material particulars; (viii) it had not been explained in the petition for eviction as to why the granddaughter of the petitioner/landlord was not dependent on her parents; (ix) that the said granddaughter of the petitioner/landlord was not a legal heir of the petitioner/landlord; (x) that the said granddaughter of the petitioner/landlord was not a member of the family of the petitioner/landlord; (xi) that the petitioner/landlord himself is residing in a palatial house; (xii) that the petitioner/landlord had not disclosed his income tax return, wherefrom the details of other properties of the petitioner/landlord could be ascertained; (xiii) that the present status of the granddaughter had not been disclosed; and, (xiv) that the granddaughter is not dependent upon the petitioner/landlord.

7. The petitioner/landlord filed a reply to the application for leave to defend pleading (i) that the house in which he was residing was a joint family residential property and not even in exclusive ownership of the petitioner/landlord; (ii) that the petitioner/landlord had a genuine requirement of the premises in the tenancy of the respondent/tenant to house the Clinic-cum-Diagnostic Centre of his granddaughter; and,