The Court upheld the presumption in favor of the landlord's genuine and bona fide requirement for possession of the premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, placing a heavy burden on the tenants to prove otherwise.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. The present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners (`Tenants'), assailing the order dated 26.07.2022, passed by the Senior Civil Judge acting as the Rent Controller of South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in RC ARC No. 5084/16, whereby the Petitioners' application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order has been passed in favour of the Respondent herein (`Landlady'), in the petition filed by her under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`DRC Act'), qua residential tenanted premises i.e., ground floor, property No. K-52, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi (`tenanted premises').

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

2.1. It is stated that she has a bona fide requirement, to settle and reside at the tenanted premises along with her husband.

2.2. It is stated that she purchased the property bearing No. K-52, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi (`Jangpura Property'), wherein the tenanted premises are located on the ground floor, from the erstwhile owner Mr. G.S. Banga on 21.05.1975. The said property was mutated in her favour, in the records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (`MCD') on 11.03.2002 and she has since been paying the property tax.

2.3. It is stated that she along with her husband and other family members which includes her son, daughter-in-law and grandson (`family members'), are currently residing at Khasra No. 134, Village Saidulajaib, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi-68 (`Khasra No. 134 property'), which is owned by her husband.

2.4. It is stated in the petition that her grandson is of a marriageable age and has to be suitably accommodated in the accommodation where she is presently residing. There is thus, paucity of accommodation at the existing accommodation. It is stated that therefore, she and her husband wish to shift to the tenanted premises.

2.5. It is further stated that since Khasra No. 134 property is located in an unauthorized colony, there is lack of basic essential amenities. For instance, there is no municipal water supply, no sewerage system, etc. Further, due to lack of water supply, the residents have to rely upon subsoil water for consumption. It is further stated that she has been medically advised not to consume sub-soil water.

2.6. It is stated that she and her husband, who are of an advanced age of 80 years and 86 years respectively, (at the time of the filing of the eviction petition) are suffering from chronic diseases and that she has already undergone a knee surgery. It is stated that both she and her husband have been medically advised not to climb stairs or do any physical exercise and therefore requires the tenanted premises i.e., ground floor residence of the Jangpura Property.

2.7. In the aforesaid facts, it was stated that she has a bona fide need for the tenanted premises which are located on the ground floor and are suitable for the residence of the Landlady and her husband.

2.8. It was also stated that the tenanted premises are lying unused and in fact the Tenants are residing elsewhere in their self-owned premises.

3. An application seeking leave to defend was filed by the Tenants on 03.03.2015, raising the following defenses:

3.1. Non-existence of Landlord-Tenant relationship between the parties. It was also contended that the Respondent is not the owner of the tenanted premises.

3.2. The Petitioners stated that their mother was initially inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile owner, Mr. G.S. Banga and she continued to be a tenant till her demise on 04.12.1996.

3.3. The Tenants stated that the Landlady's current residence i.e., Khasra No. 134 property is situated in a posh colony known as Sainik Farms, Delhi and that her husband is residing separately in Alwar/Mussorie. It is stated that therefore, there is no bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises.

3.4. It was stated that the Landla