The court emphasized that the landlord's requirement for eviction should be bona fide and that the tenant's challenges should disclose triable issues to warrant the grant of leave-to-defend.

JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J. - The petitioner/tenant impugns order dated 30.01.2018 whereby the leave-to-defend application filed by him in eviction petition E No./ARC No. 799/2016 has been dismissed and an eviction order has been passed against the petitioner. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent/landlord on the ground available under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (''DRC Act'', for short) seeking eviction of the petitioner from shop No. B-18/4 Shopping Centre, Jhilmil, Tahirpur, Delhi (now known as B-Block Market, Vivek Vihar Phase-1, Delhi) (''subject premises'', for short) citing bona-fide requirement of the landlord''s son.

Landlord''s case :

2. The case set-up by the landlord in the eviction petition is that the tenant was inducted in the subject premises on 28.07.2011 at a rent of Rs.3,000/- per month excluding electricity and water charges; and that the landlord now required the subject premises for commercial use of his son, who was unemployed and wanted to start a new business. It was also averred that the landlord had no other commercial premises available; while on the other hand, the tenant had purchased a shop in the same B-Block Market, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi from which the tenant was already running a well-established beauty parlour.

Tenant''s case :

3. The tenant filed his application seeking leave to defend the eviction petition, citing the following grounds :

(a) that the landlord was not the ''owner'' of the subject premises, since it is leasehold property, with the Delhi Development Authority as the owner/lessor ; and the landlord was only a ''co-lessee'' under the DDA alongwith one Shri Prem Nath Ohri ;

(b) that the rate of rent of the subject premises was, by the landlord''s own reckoning, Rs. 3,850/- per month; and therefore the eviction petition was barred by section 50 read with section 3(c) of the DRC Act. In support of this contention, the tenant cited Civil Suit No. 271/2015 filed by the landlord in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, in which the landlord had mentioned the rate of rent as Rs. 3,850/- per month. It is however the conceded position that the said suit was subsequently withdrawn ;

(c) that the landlord had already sold the subject premises to one Shri Siddharth Singh, Advocate; and as a result, the eviction petition could not have been filed by the landlord, nor could the eviction petition have been filed by the said purchaser, since section 14(6) of the DRC Act stood in the way. In support of this claim, the tenant cited legal notice dated 17.02.2015 issued by the said advocate, where the advocate had claimed to be owner of the subject premises ;

(d) that the landlord did not require the subject premises bona fid for the commercial requirements of his son, since the son was gainfully employed and was running a business of manufacturing plastic products/moulding factory. It was further alleged that, in any case, the son cannot run a manufacturing unit from the subject premises, since the subject premises is situate in a residential area market, from where such activity is not permissible;

(e) that the tenant was inducted in the subject premises in the year 1978 at a rent of Rs. 225/- per month; and that earlier-on the landlord had filed eviction petition E.P. No. 119/2005 titled Shiv Kumar Ohri vs. Ghias Ahmed under sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act in collusion with the tenant''s brother (who was respondent in that eviction petition); and had even obtained an eviction order dated 29.07.2010. But the landlord did not execute the eviction order and only used it to pressurise the tenant into signing a lease deed dated 28.07.2011 increasing the rent to Rs. 3,200/- per month, at which time the landlord also took Rs.13,00,000/- from the tenant in cash, as premium or pugree. It was further claimed that since the subject premises is the only source of income for the tenant, under pressure