The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent was entitled to file the eviction petition, and the defenses raised by the petitioner were not considered triable issues.

Headnote:
Section 25-B - Delhi Rent Control Act - 14(1)(e) - [The court discussed the application of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) regarding the tenanted premises. The court also referred to various judgments to support its decision.]
Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed an eviction petition stating the premises were required for running a commercial establishment. The petitioner raised various grounds for grant of leave to defend, which were analyzed by the court.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent had a better title to file the eviction petition, the tenancy was in the possession of the petitioner, and the defenses raised were not triable issues. The court also noted that the possession of the tenanted premises had already been retrieved by the respondent.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the eviction petition, possession of the tenanted premises, and the defenses raised by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent was entitled to file the eviction petition, the defenses raised were not triable issues, and there was no jurisdictional error committed by the learned ARC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Revision Petition, stating that there was no jurisdictional error and the order of eviction was not calling for any interference.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenging the order dated 27th September 2014 passed by learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ (West) in Eviction Petition No. 62/2012 titled Smt. Sudesh Mehta versus Sh. Ahok Mittal.

2. The learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ vide judgment dated 27th September 2014 was pleased to dismiss the application moved by the petitioner for grant of leave to defend and passed an eviction order under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act regarding the tenanted premises i.e. one covered hall of about 33'.6" X 47'.0" and open space measuring approximate 91'.0'' X 25'.0" in property bearing Municipal No. 650/I-A, situated at 14, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.

3. The case of the respondent/landlady set out in the eviction petition was that the premises were required by the respondent/landlady for use and occupation for running a commercial establishment. The respondent/landlady was blessed with five daughters out of whom one had expired and was unmarried. The other four daughters of the respondent/landlady are married and are residing in their respective matrimonial homes. The respondent/landlady has further stated that in order to augment her income the respondent/landlady is desirous of starting a business with her eldest daughter Shabnam Mehra as there is a lucrative offer for dealership of a tractor company by the name of Preet Tractors Limited which company is having its office at Nabha in Punjab. The respondent/landlady has further stated that in order to run the business a minimum of 350 sq. yards of the commercial place is required and the portion under the tenancy of the respondent is about 400 sq. yards and hence the premises would be ideal for running the aforesaid business. The respondent/landlady has further stated that the grandson of the respondent namely Mr. Saurabh Mehra, son of her eldest daughter Smt. Shabnam Mehra is a qualified engineer in industrial production and is presently doing a job in Dubai. The grandson of the petitioner is also desirous of coming back to India and join the business. Lastly, the respondent has mentioned that similar accommodation in the vicinity would cost the respondent/landlady to pay a rent of somewhere in the range of Rs.1,15,000/- per month which she cannot afford to pay.

4. The petitioner/tenant in his affidavit has urged the following grounds for the grant of leave to defend:

A. The Eviction Petition was bad since it failed to implead all the LRs of the elder brother of the husband of respondent/landlady.

B. Tenancy was in the name of M/s Jyoti Plastic Udyog and not in the name of the Petitioner. In addition, the Eviction Petition was also bad for the non-joinder of other LRs of the Petitioner's father.

C. The Petitioner alleged that the sole reason to file the Eviction petition was to harass the Petitioner and force him to pay higher rent.

D. The Petitioner also claimed that the business of tractors requires hard work, but since the respondent/landlady is aged and lacked business experience, it would not have made sense for the Respondent and her daughter to start this business.

E. The Petitioner further claimed that respondent/landlady was already living a comfortable life with her income from rents running in lakhs. The Petitioner also stated that the daughter of the respondent/landlady with whom the respondent/landlady desires to run the business is also rich while the other daughters are also not dependent on the respondent/landlady. Furthermore, even the grandson is highly placed in Dubai with a high income package.

F. The Petitioner had asserted that neither the premises were suitable for the business of tractors nor is the market in which the premises in question is situated was meant for such business of tractors.

G. The Petitioner further expounded that considering that the respondent/landlady had let out a portion of her property to M/s Agarwal Packers and Movers through a registered lea