The landlord's authorization to file an eviction petition, the bona-fide need for the tenanted shop, and the unavailability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN DATTA, J.

1. The present revision petition filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the “DRC Act”) assails the order/judgment dated 14.05.2015 passed by the court of Additional Rent Controller, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (the “ARC”) in eviction petition No. 31/2014, wherein the ARC had dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner and had allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent.

2. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent on the following averments:

(i) The father of the respondent inducted the petitioner as a tenant in a shop on the ground floor in property bearing no. B-86, New Seelampur Market, Delhi-110053 (the “tenanted shop”). The rate of rent of the tenanted shop was Rs. 2,000/- per month. After the father of the respondent expired on 13.02.2004; the respondent along with his two brothers namely, Sh. Laique Ahmed and Sameem Ahmed, being the legal heirs, became the co-owners/co-landlords of the tenanted shop.

(ii) The respondent along with his family is living on the first floor of the property bearing no. B-86, New Seelampur Market, Delhi-110053, his brother Sh. Laique Ahmed is residing on the second floor and his youngest brother, Sh. Sameem Ahmed is residing on the back portion of ground floor and is carrying on a business in the shop adjacent to the tenanted shop on ground floor.

(iii) The respondent requires the tenanted shop to start a business as the respondent has no other place to carry out his business. Hence, the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25B of the DRC Act.

3. An application seeking leave to defend came to be filed by the petitioner wherein it was contended that:

(i) The petitioner was not the tenant of the respondent. It was the father of the respondent who inducted the petitioner as a tenant in the tenanted shop. The petitioner has paid Rs. 1,59,000/- as pagri to the father of the respondent, and a document dated 04.07.1991 was executed in the said regard. After the death of the father of the respondent, Sh. Laique Ahmed, brother of the respondent collected the rent of the tenanted shop. Later, Sh. Khalil Ahmed, brother of the petitioner, was also inducted as a co-tenant in the tenanted shop by Sh. Laique Ahmed. The petitioner thus contended that the petitioner never remained under the tenancy of the respondent.

(ii) It was further averred by the petitioner (tenant) that suitable alternative accommodation is available with the respondent. It is averred that the respondent is having another property bearing no. 1/175 (Old No. C-44/12), Gali No. 12, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi-110053, built up three and a half storey and it is in the name of Ms. Shahin, wife of the respondent. The said property has a shop on the ground floor which is lying vacant. It is further averred that the property bearing No. B-86, New Seelampur Market (in which the tenanted shop is situated on the ground floor) is built up to 2nd floor and the first floor, back portion of ground floor in the said property is lying vacant. The petitioner also asserted that the brother of the respondent, Sh. Laique Ahmed owns four other properties. Another property i.e. A-152, situated A-Block, New Seelampur, Delhi-53 is alleged to be available to the respondent from where Sh. Shariq Ahmed i.e. son of the respondent, is stated to be running a cosmetic store. The petitioner thus contended that the respondent has sufficient alternative accommodation available with him.

(iii) The respondent is already doing the business of hair cutting from the shop adjacent to the tenanted shop. Further, the respondent did not disclose in the eviction petition what business the respondent wants to start from the tenanted shop. The petitioner thus contended in its leave to defend application that the respondent does not have the bona-fide requirement of the tenanted shop.

4. A reply was filed by the respondent in response to the leave to defend application denyi