JUDGMENT :

[Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.]

CM. APPL. 1783/2023 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.

CAV 21/2023

Mr. Nagender Yadav, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of the Respondents.

Accordingly, the caveat stands discharged.

RC.REV. 6/2023, CM APPL. 1784/2023

1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner (‘Tenant’), impugning the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned CCJ acting as the Additional Rent Controller, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in E-148/2019, whereby the Tenant’s application seeking leave to defend has been dismissed and the eviction petition filed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (‘Landlords’) under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘DRC Act’) has been allowed.

2. The eviction petition was filed by the Landlords in the year 2019 on the plea that their son, Mr. Kartik Garg, who has recently graduated in the year 2018 and is aged about 21 years requires the tenanted premises to start his business of sale/purchase of hardware and paint items. It was stated in the petition that there was no other alternative suitable accommodation available. The petition was resisted by the Tenant, who sought leave to defend and opposed the prayers as made by the Landlords on the plea of availability of suitable alternate accommodation.

3. In the present proceedings as well, learned counsel for the Petitioner, tenant, states that the Landlords are admittedly the joint owners of the ground floor of the property bearing no. 10944/4, Dori Walan, Mandir Road, Sabzi Bazar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005 (‘subject property’). He states that the Landlords already have in their possession two shops, out of which one shop is being used by the Respondent No. 1, Landlord, wherein he is carrying out his wholesale kiryana business (‘Shop No. 1’); and in the second shop the Landlords’ son, Mr. Kartik Garg, is carrying on a business of property dealing under the name and style of Garg Properties (‘Shop No. 2’). He further, states that during the pendency of these proceedings, an area on the rear side of the subject property marked as a godown in the site plan and admeasuring 8’ X 7.6’ (‘godown’), also became available to the Landlords herein, as the Respondent No. 2, Landlady, succeeded in a separate eviction petition filed for recovery of possession of the said godown. It is stated that the possession of the said godown was recovered on 23.03.2021 by the Respondent No. 2, Landlady, however, this fact was not disclosed to the Trial Court.

3.1. He further states that the eviction petition was filed on the plea that the Landlords’ son, Mr. Kartik Garg, is dependent on them for a suitable accommodation, whereas, the facts set out by the Tenant in the application seeking leave to defend discloses that the Mr. Kartik Garg is already gainfully employed and running his business from Shop No. 2. He states that in these circumstances, the Trial Court erred in not granting the Tenant, the leave to defend.

3.2. He states that therefore, the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the need of the Landlords pleaded in the eviction petition was not bona fide and the fact that the Landlords have sufficient accommodation available with them in the subject property.

4. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondents, Landlords, states that the Landlords have duly filed a reply to the application seeking leave to defend and categorically stated that the Shop No.1 is being used for operating kiryana business by the Respondent No. 1, Landlord, along with his brother, Mr. Vinod Garg and in the Shop No. 2, a business of property dealing is being carried out by Respondent No. 1’s brother, Mr. Vinod Garg, in the name and style of Garg Properties. He states that Landlord’s son, Mr. Kartik Garg, has no concern with the said business of Garg Properties being carried out in Shop No.2.

4.1. He states that with respect to the submission of the reco