The main legal point established is that the Landlord's bona fide need for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act was justified based on the unavailability of alternate premises due to sealing and demolition.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 7th February, 2020 by which the leave to defend application filed by the Petitioner/Tenant (hereinafter, ‘Tenant’) has been dismissed by the ld. Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter, ‘ARC’) in E. No. 662/2018 in CIS No. 887/2018 titled M/s Shree Nath Ji Developers v. The Technological Institute of Textiles and Sciences.

Brief Facts

2. The brief background to this petition is that the ground floor of Shop No.1597, Ward No. II, Jogdhian Colony, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘tenanted premises’) was taken on rent by the Tenant from 1960 onwards from its erstwhile owner, Mr. Jogdhian Rastogi. The Tenant is a registered Society under the West Bengal Society Registration Act, 1961 and claims to be a Non-Profit Organization which takes over, or otherwise supports schools, colleges or other educational institutions for the development of education and diffusion of knowledge in different branches of textile technology and other fields of sciences. The Landlord/Respondent (hereinafter, ‘Landlord’) is a partnership firm which is engaged in the real estate business.

3. The first and second floor in Property No. 1526, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘Property No.1526’) was purchased by the Landlord on 2nd May, 2011 from the legal heirs of Mr. Jogdhian Rastogi. It consists of 58 shops, including the tenanted premises, as well as Shop No.128, which is stated to be the office of the Landlord. On 5th October, 2013, the Landlord purchased Property No. 1597-98, Ground Floor, Ward No. II, Jogdhian Colony, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, which includes the tenanted premises. The Landlord issued a legal notice dated 12th November 2013 to the Tenant, demanding deposit of rent as it had stepped into the shoes of the previous owners.

4. It is claimed that the tenanted premises was under the Slum Development Authority. Accordingly, the Landlord filed an application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter, ‘Slum Act’), and received sanction from the Competent Authority to take action in respect of its Tenants vide order dated 5th January, 2018.

5. The Tenant challenged the aforesaid order by filing a writ petition, being W.P(C) No. 1244/2018 titled The Technological Institute of Textiles and Sciences v. MCD (North) & Ors., before this Court, which is pending as on date. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Landlord moved an application under Section 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, ‘DRC Act’) seeking eviction of the Tenant, however, the same was dismissed on 4th February, 2017. The Landlord has appealed the order of dismissal, which appeal is also stated to have been dismissed.

6. Thereafter, the Landlord moved an application under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. In the said petition, the leave to defend application of the Petitioner has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 7th February, 2020. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

“16. Hence, the application for leave to defend filed by respondent is ordered to be dismissed. Consequently, eviction order is liable to be passed against the respondent u/s Section 25 B (4) of the Act. In view of above, petition is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e., 1597, Ground Floor, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.”

Hence, the present petition.

Submissions of the Tenant

7. Mr. Jayant Mehta, ld. counsel appearing for the Tenant, submits that the premises are being used for the purpose of storage