The main legal point established is that under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the landlord's bona fide need for the premises must be established, and the court may consider the availability of sufficient accommodation.

1. The eviction case (E-164/14/11), in which the impugned order dated 15.02.2016 was passed by the additional rent controller (ARC) which is impugned in the present proceeding, was instituted by Tilak Raj Kapoor. The prayer in the said case was for eviction of the respondent, concededly a tenant in a portion described as shop with dimensions of 9 ft x 9 ft., forming part of property described as bearing No.313/73-F, Anand Nagar, Delhi on the ground of bona fide need under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the requirement having been described as residential of the petitioner and of members of the family dependent upon him.

2. Having regard to the nature of the prayer made in the eviction case, the ARC applied the special procedure under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and in answer to the summons served on the respondent herein, she moved an application seeking leave to contest. The said prayer was granted by the ARC by order dated 15.02.2016, which to the extent relevant, may be extracted thus:-

“It is contended by the respondent that after the death of her husband, the petitioner has been harassing her and even refused to receive the rent. That the petitioner is not in bona fide requirement of the suit premises because one shop lying with the petitioner and the same is closed for a very long time and that the same is not mentioned in the present petition. That it is falsely stated by the petitioner that his Sh. Ashok Kumar was residing in the premises No.193 and another son Sh. Raj Kumar was residing in premises no.65 but in fact both the sons are the owners of the said flats. That the son of the petitioner namely Sh. Deepak, who is residing with the petitioner, owns a flat at Dawarka and Sh. Gulshan owns a flat in Rohini and the said facts are not disclosed by the petitioner in his petition. That accordingly, the application be allowed.

The petitioner in his reply to the leave to defend application of the respondent has reiterated the contents of the petition and denied the allegations of the respondent.

On careful perusal of the record, I am of the view that the respondent is able to raise the triable issues regarding the availability of the sufficient accommodation with the petitioner and also about the bona fide requirement of the suit premises by him.

In view of above, there are triable issues between the parties and the same cannot be decided without inviting the evidence. Therefore, the leave to defend application of the respondent is allowed and she is directed to file the WS within 30 days from today with advance copy to the petitioner. …”

3. The revision petition at hand was filed in May, 2016. While it was pending, the said original petitioner Tilak Raj Kapoor died on 13.09.2016. On the applications moved in the wake of such event, his legal heirs were directed to be brought on record by substitution. They are prosecuting the matter further.

4. The perusal of the eviction petition and the documents filed therewith would reveal that the original petitioner Tilak Raj Kapoor was 83 years old at the time of filing of the petition, his wife Nirmala Devi being 77 years old at that point of time. Since she has survived him, she would now herself be 84 years old. Her family comprises of four sons and one daughter, each of whom is married having their own children. It was case of the petitioner that two elder sons Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar do not depend on the parents for residential needs, they living elsewhere in own accommodation (flats) in Pitampura area of Delhi. Though some contentions were raised with regard to status of the said elder children vis-à-vis the said flats in Pitampura, Delhi the same is of no consequence inasmuch as the petitioner did not even plead their need.

5. The petitioner had filed a site plan with the eviction petition showing the accommodation available to him at the time of filing of the petition. A copy thereof has been filed (at page 61 of the paper book).