The landlord's right to seek eviction for bonafide necessity and the tenant's inability to dictate the landlord's use of the property were established.

JUDGMENT :

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

1. This revision petition challenges the impugned judgment dated 07.05.2018 passed by learned CCJ-cum-ARC, Pilot Court (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts in eviction petition No.E-279/2017 (New No.321/2017) whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The respondent herein had filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter ‘DRC Act’) read with Section 25B (8) of the DRC Act qua the premises bearing No.2527/28, being part of built up property having Khasra No.521, Gali Nalwa, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, Delhi – 110055, which premises was let out for residential purposes to the petitioner herein. It was alleged Sardar Pawanjit Singh Bawa – the original owner / landlord of the property under an oral agreement to let, had let out the premises to one Ram Singh and thereafter the respondent came into possession of the same through Ram Singh. She latter attorned to S.Pawanjit Singh and became tenant.

3. It was alleged by the respondent the premises is required bonafidely by her for opening a coaching – cum – tuition centre and she has no other suitable and reasonable accommodation available with her for the said purposes. How the petitioner became an owner of the property is enumerated in para No.9 of the petition and is not repeated for brevity.

4. The petitioner herein has raised three issues in his leave to defend application viz. a) the respondent is not an owner of the premises and in fact the original owner was one Jagjeet Singh, who has since expired and he executed a Will in favour of his son Sardar Pawanjit Singh Bawa, who sold the tenancy premises to four person in the year 2010 and the respondent is not an absolute owner of the premises in dispute and neither in the sale deed dated 27.07.2010 nor in the site plan annexed to the petition, the premises is described properly; b) the premises is residential and whereas it is allegedly required for commercial purposes, which per se is against municipal bye-laws; and c) during the pendency of petition, the respondent had married and had shifted to Patel Nagar, Delhi i.e. far off from the tenanted premises and hence the reason for which the premises was required, had disappeared.

5. The leave to defend was granted and the suit/petition then went into trial. The respondent led her evidence and examined herself as PW1 and had proved SPA dated 12.04.2017 as Ex.PW1/1; sale deeds dated 27.07.2010 as Ex.PW1/2; site plan as Ex.PW1/3; copy of rent receipt as Ex.PW1/4; copy of the letter dated 13.04.2017 written by Sardar Pawanjit Singh Bawa to the respondent asking her to pay rent to the landlord / respondent as Ex.PW1/5; and the documents pertaining to the educational qualifications of the respondent as Ex.PW1/6 (Colly).

6. Sardar Pawanjit Singh Bawa entered into the witness box as PW2 and deposed in consonance with the respondent PW1 stating interalia he had sold the properties bearing No.2524 to 2530 and 2527 to the respondent and other co-owners vide sale deeds dated 27.07.2010 and had duly informed the petitioner qua execution of such sale deeds.

7. The petitioner also entered into the witness box and examined herself as RW1 wherein she relied upon the marriage card of the respondent Ex.RW1/1; copy of the legal notice dated 18.10.2011 RW1/2 which she had received from one Ms.Anu Oberoi who also claimed herself to be an owner of this premises; copy of print out taken from the website of the Department of Revenue, Government of NCT of Delhi showing sale of the property bearing No.2524-2530 and 2527, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, Delhi to various persons as Ex.RW1/3; and copy of the rent receipt as Ex.RW1/4.

8. The contentions which the petitioner had raised before the learned Additional Rent Controller during the time of filing of her leave to defend application have been raised even now. Qua the ownership of the respondent, her bonafide necessity and alternative accommodation the l