The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of pleadings and the prohibition on introducing new pleas at a belated stage, as well as the essential ingredients required for eviction on bona fide needs under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. This revision petition is filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act’) to impugn the order of eviction dated 20.5.2016 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ARC’).

2. The respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant/petitioner under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the DRC Act seeking eviction of the premises 308/12 Shahzada Bagh, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi comprising of three rooms, kitchen, toilet, bathroom with small courtyard on the ground floor. It was pleaded in the Eviction Petition that the premises was let out to the petitioner/tenant by the previous owner Shri Lachman Singh by an oral agreement for residential purposes only and the nature of premises is also residential. The respondent purchased the property vide sale deed dated 21.11.1997. It was also pleaded that the respondent/landlord is residing in Rohini with his sister in a flat owned by her. Further, it was stated that the sister had asked the respondent to vacate the premises and that the respondent does not own any other property other than another property being 308/11, Shahzada Bagh, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi which is on rent to one Shri Bhupinder Singh Grewal. It was also pleaded that the respondent is not married on account of non-availability of accommodation.

3. The petitioner/tenant filed his application for leave to defend. The ARC vide his order dated 12.12.2005 noted that the issue as to whether the tenanted premises was let out for commercial purposes is an issue which will have to be gone into at the time of trial. Hence, leave to defend was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed his written statement.

4. Parties have led their evidence. The petitioner examined himself as RW-1 and led the evidence of Shri Jaswinder Singh RW-2 who is owner of premises 308/16, Shahzada Bagh, Daya Basti, Delhi who deposed that the said premises is being used for commercial purposes and the entire area is industrial/commercial area. Evidence of RW-3 Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, UDC, Industries Department, 419 FIE, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-92 RW4 Shri Sita Ram, SS(O), Idgah Telephone Exchange, MTNL, RW-5 Shri Vijay Singh, Office Incharge, Factory Licensing Department, North Delhi Municipal Corporation was also led.

5. It may be noted that in the course of evidence the respondent/landlord moved an application under section 151 CPC stating that the demised premises were purchased by the respondent from its previous owner Shri Lachman Singh vide registered Sale Deed dated 21.11.1997 and that the premises was let out for residential purposes and the nature of the premises is also residential. The applicant further pleaded that the entire contention in the written statement of the petitioner was that the premises was let out to the petitioner for commercial purpose. The applicant pleaded that the Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs vs. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 287 has expanded the scope of 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act to include premises used for commercial purposes also. Hence, it was pleaded in the application that the plea of the petitioner regarding the demised premises being put to commercial use be ignored and the evidence of the petitioner be restricted accordingly as needless time is being spent in recording the evidence. However, the ARC by order dated 23.9.2014 did not accept the plea of the respondent. After completion of evidence the impugned order was passed.

6. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the ARC on the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant concluded that the respondent is the owner of the premises and the relationship of landlord-tenant existed between the parties.

On the question as to whether the premises are required bona fide for his residence by the respondent and also on the issue whether there is sufficient alternative accommodation with the resp