The Court emphasized the importance of establishing a bona fide need for eviction under the DRC Act and the requirement for the tenant to raise triable issues to warrant a consideration on merits.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by Madan Lal (`Tenant') i.e., the predecessor of the Petitioners, who was the tenant in one shop, private no.2, bearing Municipal No.1/1115, with one godown, private no.2, bearing municipal no.1/1108, including Kolki and open space behind the godown situated at Harsaran Niwas, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi (`tenanted premises'), assailing the order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the Rent Controller (`the Trial Court') whereby the eviction order was passed in favour of the Respondent (`Landlord') and the application seeking leave to defend filed by the Tenant has been dismissed.

2. The execution of the eviction order was stayed during the pendency of the present revision petition vide order dated 05.05.2016 and the Tenant was directed to pay monthly user charges vide order dated 11.04.2017.

3. During the pendency of this petition, the Tenant passed away on 10.08.2019 and his legal heirs were brought on record vide order dated 03.11.2020.

4. The eviction petition was instituted by the Landlord, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`DRC Act') before the Trial Court on the ground of his bona fide need for the tenanted premises. In the eviction petition, the Landlord made the following averments:

4.1. He stated that he is a practicing lawyer enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, and is also a member of the court annexed Bar Associations as well as empanelled with Government/Autonomous authorities. It was stated that he practices before the District Courts in Delhi including Tis Hazari and Karkardooma Court. It was stated that he has not been allotted any chamber or seat in any of the District Court Complexes and therefore, he requires the tenanted premises in connection with his legal profession for setting up his office, meeting his clients, establishing a computer set up and a library.

4.2. It was stated that since the tenanted premises are situated near the metro station, Shahdara, Delhi, the said premises are most reasonable and suitable to the Landlord for setting up a lawyer's chamber.

4.3. It was stated that since he is already 65 years of age, he has developed a knee problem of arthritis due to which he has been advised by his doctors to avoid climbing stairs. In furtherance of this additional reason, he stated that the tenanted premises located on the ground floor are most suitable for setting up a lawyer's chamber.

4.4. The Landlord further disclosed that the other premises owned by him are not suitable for setting up the lawyer's chamber. The details of the alternative premises disclosed in the eviction petition were as follows:

a) first floor portion of the Harsaran Niwas building is a residential flat and further it is in a dilapidated condition;

b) a godown at Harsaran Niwas building existing on the back side on the ground floor is in a dilapidated condition and there is dampness due to moisture in the said godown;

c) his personal residence is a flat on the first floor, in premises bearing Municipal No.235 at Farsh Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi. The said premises are since inception used only for his residence. Even otherwise the entrance of the said residence is through a narrow street.

d) a shop admeasuring 10' x 10' in Farsh Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi. The said shop is very small and also in a dilapidated condition and without a roof.

5. In the application seeking leave to defend, the Tenant has not disputed the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The said eviction petition was objected by the Tenant on the ground that the Landlord's requirement of the tenanted premises was not bona fide. It was stated that since he is already 65 years of age, he does not require to set up an office and even otherwise, he had suitable alternate accommodation available to him for setting up the lawyer's chamber. With reference to the alternate accommodation, he relied upon the properties disclosed by the Landlord in the ev