The genuine need of the landlord for eviction and the profitability of business from the ground floor were central to the court's decision.

1. CM(M) No.248/2017 impugns the order (dated 25th January, 2017 in E-235/15 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller-2 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts) granting leave to defend to the respondent to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed by the petitioner.

2. CM(M) No.771/2017 has been preferred impugning the order dated 31st May, 2017 in the same petition for eviction, closing the right to file written statement owing to the written statement having not been filed within the prescribed time and listing the petition for eviction for evidence on 20th September, 2017.

3. Both petitions were entertained.

4. The counsels were heard on 8th September, 2017 and have been heard further today.

5. If CM(M) No.248/2017 were to be allowed and an order of eviction to be passed against the respondent therein, the need to consider CM(M) No.771/2017 would not arise and the same would become infructuous. Thus counsels have been heard on CM(M) No.248/2017.

6. Before proceeding to adjudicate CM(M) No.248/2017, I may record that the filing thereof as a CM(M) Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is misconceived inasmuch as per the dicta of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Chowdhry Vs. Narain Devi Taneja (1980) 2 SCC 120 and of the Division Bench of this Court in R.S. Bakshi Vs. H.K. Malhari 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1344, against an order of grant of leave to defend, a petition under Section 25B(8) of the Rent Act lies. However, since the petition was entertained and counsels were heard and both CM(M) as well as Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Act are on the Roster of this Bench, this technicality is ignored.

7. The relationship of landlord and tenant between Pravesh Jain as landlord, and Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. as tenant is not disputed and it is also not in dispute that Pravesh Jain is the owner of the premises in the tenancy of the Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. Thus parties would be referred to hereinafter as landlord and tenant.

8. The landlord instituted the petition for eviction of the tenant from one godown in property no.5776-77/49, Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Thana Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110006 on the ground of bona fide requirement thereof for use of self and members of the family dependent upon the landlord, pleading (i) that the tenant is the tenant in the said godown for decades @ Rs.268/- per month; (ii) that the landlord has two sons namely Maneet Jain and Rohit Jain who are doing business of pharmaceutical raw material from the remaining portion of the ground floor of property no. 5776-77/49, Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Thana Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi adjacent to the godown in the tenancy of the tenant ; (iii) that now the son of Maneet jain namely Aman Jain has recently completed his studies and wishes to join the business; (vi) that the godown in the tenancy of the tenant is required bona fide for the use of business; (v) that the son of the landlord maintains stocks of pharmaceutical raw material in the portion of the ground floor of the property in their possession and seven-eight staff persons also sit there; (vi) that now space of an office for the son of Maneet Jain is also required; (vii) additional space is also required for expansion of the business with the induction of the grandson of the landlord therein; and, (viii) that the landlord had no other alternate reasonably suitable accommodation.

9. The tenant, in the application for leave to defend, inter alia pleaded (i) that it was a tenant in the premises for over 30 years; (ii) that the landlord, besides being the owner of property no.5776 was also the owner of property no.5777/49, both in Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Thana Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and both adjacent to each other; (iii) that the landlord, “two years back” sold the first and second floors of 5777/49; (iv) that the landlord, if had need for any additional premises, would not have sold the said first and seco