The Court emphasized the importance of proving a landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction and the need for tenants to provide evidence to rebut the landlord's assertions.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. The present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner (`Tenant'), assailing the order dated 07.07.2022, passed by the Senior Civil Judge acting as the Rent Controller of East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court'), whereby the Respondent's (`Landlord') eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`DRC Act') has been allowed and an eviction order has been passed in favour of the Landlord qua shop No. 3 situated at ground floor of Property No. 1263, Narain Market, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi (`tenanted premises/shop No. 3').

2. The Tenant's application for leave to defend was allowed vide order dated 11.10.2013, accordingly, written statement was filed by the Tenant and thereafter, evidence was led by the parties.

3. The facts of the case as averred by the Landlord and relevant for deciding the present revision petition are as follows:

3.1. The eviction petition was instituted by the Respondent, owner and landlord, on the ground of bona fide requirement for expanding his shop and non-availability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation.

3.2. The Respondent deposed that he is the owner and landlord of three shops in Property No. 1263, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi (`Property), shown in green, red and yellow colour in the site plan marked as EX. PW1/1. The tenanted premises are marked on the site plan in colour red. The shop from where the Landlord is carrying out his business is marked on the site plan in colour green (for ease of reference identified as `shop No. 1') and the shop being used by the Petitioner as a godown is marked on the site plan in colour yellow (for ease of reference identified as `shop No. 2').

3.3. The Landlord deposed that he is carrying on a business of readymade garments under the name and style of M/s Rajesh Garments from the shop No. 1 and he uses the shop No. 2, which is located at the rear side of the property, as a godown. The Landlord further states that his shop No. 1 is very small and he cannot accommodate the customers in the said shop admeasuring 7' 3'' x 4' 6''.

3.4. The Landlord deposed that he has applied for the registration of a Tax Payer Identification Number (`TIN') for his business from the said shop No. 1 on 14.03.2013 and the registration certificate was issued by the sales tax authority on 26.08.2013.

3.5. The Landlord deposed that he wants to amalgamate/merge his existing shop with the adjoining tenanted premises to make one big shop in order to expand his business and display the garments properly.

4. The Tenant vide the present revision petition has opposed the pleas of the Landlord on the ground that the Landlord does not have any bona fide need for the tenanted premises as he is not carrying on any business of readymade garments and, in fact, the shop Nos. 1 and 2 are lying vacant. It is further stated that the Landlord also has in his possession an entire property, which is owned by the mother of the Landlord.

5. While before the Trial Court, the Tenant in its pleadings had raised an issue with respect to the non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as well as non-impleadment of his brother Ajay Kumar, however, no arguments in this regard were addressed before this Court during the hearing in the present revision petition.

6. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that the Trial Court's finding that the Landlord carries out his business of readymade garments from shop No. 1 is without any basis. He states that the Landlord has not led any evidence on the record to prove that he is carrying on the said business. He states that, in fact, immediately prior to filing of the eviction petition in July, 2013, the Landlord had in January, 2012, let out the shop No. 1, to oneMohd. Arif, for a period of 36 months at a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-. He states that the evidence led by the Landlord to prove that the said tenancy was