The court emphasized the importance of upholding the summary procedure for eviction and prioritizing the landlord's genuine requirement for self-use of the property under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

1. This Rent control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order [dated 20th July, 2017 in ARC.No.25743/2016 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller (West), Tis Hazari] of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the respondent and the consequent order of eviction of the petitioner from shop on ground floor of property No.C-146, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi.

2. The counsel for the petitioner/tenant was heard on 9th October, 2017, when hearing was adjourned to enable the counsel to file certain document. Though the document claimed to be filed by the counsel is not on record but the counsel has today in Court handed over an index dated 13th October, 2017 with copy of the Rent Agreement dated 30th June, 2014 and which is taken on record.

3. The counsel for the petitioner/tenant has been heard.

4. The counsel for the petitioner/tenant on the last date of hearing and as recorded in the order of that date, stated that the petitioner/tenant did not controvert the ownership of the respondent and the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.

5. The respondent instituted the petition for eviction from which this petition arises, pleading (i) that the respondent has no permanent source of income and undertakes only some casual work which cannot fulfil the financial needs of the respondent and members of his family comprising of himself, son, two unmarried daughters and wife, all of whom are dependent upon the respondent; (ii) that the son of the respondent is also unemployed and jobless; and, (iii) that the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner is required by the respondent for personal use of himself and for members of his family dependent upon him, to run some business in the same, for his livelihood.

6. The petitioner/tenant sought leave to defend pleading, (i) that the respondent, in the site plan has not shown all the shops situated on the ground floor of the property; (ii) that the petitioner is a tenant in shop no.3, situated on the ground floor of property no.C-146, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi – 110 027; (iii) that the respondent has no bona fide requirement of the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner in view of the fact that the respondent, on 30th June, 2014, has let out a shop situated adjacent to the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner to one Shri Udit, S/o Shri Rampal, R/o 46, Janta Flats, Pocket-3, Paschim Puri, Delhi vide Rent Agreement dated 30th June, 2014 and copy of which was annexed to the application for leave to defend; (iv) the same shows the mala fide intention of the respondent; (v) that the respondent is receiving rent from the six tenants on the ground floor and three tenants on the first and second floors of the property; and, (vi) that had there been any intention of the respondent to start any business, he would not have given the shop on rent to Shri Udit on 30th June, 2014.

7. The petitioner/tenant, along with this petition did not file copy of the site plan filed by the respondent along with the petition for eviction. However during the hearing on 9th October, 2017 when this petition first came up before this Court, the counsel for the petitioner/tenant handed over the said site plan and which was taken on record. No site plan of his own was filed by the petitioner/tenant.

8. It was the contention of the counsel for the petitioner/tenant during the hearing on 9th October, 2017, that the respondent having let out another shop in the property on 30th June, 2014 to Shri Udit and the respondent in reply to the application for leave to defend having denied that there was any tenant in the property by the name of Shri Udit, the same raised a triable issue on which leave to defend ought to have been granted to the petitioner/tenant.

9. However the petitioner/tenant having not filed before this Cou