The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act to justify the eviction of the respondent based on the bona fide need of the petitioners for the shop.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Appellant impugns judgment dated 06.01.2018, whereby the eviction petition filed by the appellant under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, has been dismissed.

2. Appellants had filed the subject eviction petition seeking eviction of respondent-Ram Mohan Seth (since expired) and now represented by his legal heirs from one shop measuring 61/2 feet x 10 feet in Ward No.3, property bearing No.3145-47 and 3148 (half) and 3153 (new) on the ground floor of the said property, more particularly, described as shop in property bearing No.3146, Ground Floor, Ward No.3, Ram Bazar, Mori Gate, Delhi, shown in red colour in the site plan, Ex.PW-1/RX3. The subject shop is the shop in centre of the property on the front side.

3. Eviction petition was filed contending that the property is owned by the petitioners, who are brothers and landlords of the subject premises. Petitioner No.2, Ashok Kumar Sahni had contended that he has two sons, Jatin Sahni and Kapil Sahni. Both the sons are married. Elder son, Sh. Jatin Sahni was carrying on business of clothes at Gandhi Nagar and is settled and looking after his family from the business carried on by him. The younger son of Ashok Kumar Sahni i.e. Mr. Kapil Sahni was then unemployed and wanted to start a business from the subject shop.

4. The eviction petition was filed on 27.04.2012. The younger son, Mr. Kapil Sahni has since completed his graduation in Law and has enrolled as an Advocate in 2013 i.e., after the filing of the eviction petition.

5. Leave to defend was granted to the respondent and thereafter, after trial the eviction petition had been dismissed. The respondent-tenant had contended that there were alternative accommodation available with the petitioners in the form of a godown which was on the rear of the property and had subsequently got vacated.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the godown was got vacated from its earlier tenant for the purposes of residence of the petitioner No.2 and his family and was not a suitable alternative accommodation for the purposes of running a shop or opening of an office.

7. After some arguments, learned counsel for the respondents under instructions from Mr. Munish Seth, one of the legal heirs of the erstwhile tenant submits that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners are the owners and landlords of the subject premises. There is also no dispute that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. He further under instructions from Mr. Munish Seth admits and acknowledges that the need of the petitioners is bona fides and that they have no other suitable alternative accommodation.

8. Respondents admit and acknowledge that the impugned judgment dated 06.01.2018 being erroneous be set aside and concede that an order of eviction be passed under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Learned counsel under instructions prays that one year time be granted to the respondents to vacate the subject tenanted premises.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 06.01.2018 is set aside and an order of eviction is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in respect of shop measuring 61/2 feet x 10 feet in Ward No.3, property bearing No.3145-47 and 3148 (half) and 3153 (new) on the ground floor of the said property, more particularly, described as shop in property bearing No.3146, Ground Floor, Ward No.3, Ram Bazar, Mori Gate, Delhi, shown in red colour in the site plan, Ex.PW-1/RX3. The shop in centre of the property on the front side.

10. In view of Section 14 (7), the respondents are entitled to time of six months to vacate the premises, however, in view of the submission made by the respondent, on an affidavit of undertaking being filed by the respondents within two weeks, with copy to learned counsel for petitioner, the order of eviction passed today be not