The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, emphasizing the essential requirements for a landlord to obtain an eviction order for bona fide needs and the parameters for granting leave to defend.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. This revision petition is filed under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DRC Act’) seeking to impugn the eviction order and judgment dated 09.08.2016 passed by the court of Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ARC’). By the impugned order, the ARC dismissed the application for leave to defend under Section 25B of the DRC Act and passed an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

2. The respondent/landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from Shop No. 9A situated at ground floor of property No. HS-9, Kailash Colony Market, New Delhi-11048 on the ground of bona fide requirements of the family members of the respondent. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that the respondent is the absolute owner of the tenanted premises having purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 31.12.1996. It was pleaded that the property is required for the bona fide requirement to settle his daughter-in-law, namely, Ms. Meenakshi Dugar and his daughter, namely, Ms. Jyoti. The case of the respondent was that Ms. Meenakshi Dugar, the daughter-in-law comes from a business family. After marriage she gave birth to two children who are now school going. Hence, she has sufficient time to engage herself in business activities. Similar plea is raised regarding the daughter-Jyoti, namely, that her children have now started going to school and she also has sufficient time to engage herself. It is pleaded that she does not have a full time job and is also said to be not settled in life. For more than one year, it is pleaded, she is working with a firm M/s. Global Sources and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-. It was urged that the said daughter and daughter-in-law require to set up a business for earning their livelihood as at present they are not doing any business. They are planning to set up an eating point to serve regular food to their potential customers. They plan to set up a kitchen on the ground floor with storage at mezzanine floor and a take away point in the front portion of the shop. They are said to be presently without any business and are in need of the commercial premises. It is also pointed out that the respondent and his family members own the property No.HS-9 and third floor of the property HS-10, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. A part of the ground floor and mezzanine is under the tenancy of the petitioner. Another part of the premises is in occupation of the respondent, his son-Sh. Rakesh Dugar and his son-in-law-Sh. Manish Buchha. The manner of using the shop has been explained, namely, the ground floor is for sale of sweets and snacks from the front portion. In the rear portion of the ground floor, mezzanine and first floor, a regular retail grocery store is being run. The third floor of the building, namely, HS-9 and HS-10 is being used for manufacturing activities of the sweets, snacks and other confectionary items which are being sold under the name and style of M/s. Manav Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Sweets using the brand name of ‘Bikaner Namkeen Bhandar’. A portion of the property is also said to be under the tenancy of an old tenant, namely, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. It has been pleaded that apart from the said properties stated in the petition, the respondent does not own or possess any accommodation much less a commercial accommodation in entire Delhi.

3. The ARC by the impugned order noted the submissions/defence of the petitioner/tenant as follows:-

(i) Daughter-Jyoti is not a family member nor dependent on the respondent and does not require the premises. The married daughter, it was pleaded, was residing with her husband and children in her matrimonial home. The daughter not being a member of the family of the respondent, no such petition could be filed for her alleged requirement.

(ii) Daughter-in-law-Meenakshi Dugar is not dependent on