The judgment establishes the importance of proving landlord-tenant relationship, genuine need, and lack of alternate suitable accommodations in eviction cases under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. The present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner (`tenant') assailing the eviction order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in RC ARC No. 78246/2016, wherein, post-trial, the eviction order has been passed in favour of the Respondent No.1 (`landlord').

2. The Petitioner is seeking to challenge the impugned eviction order mainly on the ground that the Respondent No.1 has failed to prove his bona fide need as well as the fact that the said Respondent has various other suitable alternate accommodations available for his alleged bona fide need.

3. The Respondent No.1 is the co-owner of the Property bearing Nos. 673 to 677, Bazar Chitli Qabar, Jama Masjid, Delhi (`subject property'), which was jointly purchased by the Respondent No.1 along with his two brothers namely Qutubuddin i.e., Respondent No.2 herein and Qayamuddin, vide registered sale deed dated 20.09.1973. The four (4) shops at the ground floor of Property bearing Nos. 673 to 676 were let out to different tenants, wherein shop No. 673 in the subject property (`tenanted premises') was let out to the Petitioner from where is he running a business of selling Pan, Biri, Cigarettes etc.

4. The eviction petition was instituted by the Respondent No.1, who is an elderly citizen of 84 years of age, for the bona fide requirement of himself and his family members who intend to run and operate a business of readymade garments from the tenanted premises. The said eviction petition was instituted on 16.08.2012 and the impugned eviction order was passed on 31.08.2022. The Petitioner has thereafter awaited from 01.09.2022 to 05.12.2022 to file the revision petition on similar grounds as raised in the eviction proceedings, which were duly adjudicated by the Trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that there doesn't exist any landlord-tenant relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, and that the Respondent No.2 is the landlord of the Petitioner herein. He states that the Respondent No.1 herein, arrayed his brother, Qutubuddin, as Respondent No.2 in the eviction petition and is claiming himself to be a coowner of the tenanted premises along with Respondent No.2. He fairly admits that he does not dispute the co-ownership of the Respondent No.1 and the issue is raised only with respect to non-existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1.

5.1. He states that the tenanted premises is a triangular shaped, small sized shop, ad-measuring 6' x 3' and is not suitable for the bona fide need of the Respondent No.1 or his family members.

5.2. In the leave to defend application it is stated that other shops on ground floor of subject property i.e., shop No. 675 is lying vacant and shop No. 676 is in occupation of another tenant. It is stated that the shop No. 674 was let out by the Respondent No.1 to another tenant, immediately before filing of the eviction petition.

5.2.1. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner has altered his stand with respect to the said shops during the course of arguments in the present revision petition and he states that with respect to shop No. 674, an eviction order has been passed by the Rent Controller against the statutory tenant and a revision petition bearing RC. REV. 250/2017 is pending before this Court.

5.2.2. He states that with respect to shop No. 675, it is admitted that the same is in occupation of a third party namely Mr. Mohd. Shafiq, however, it was alleged that the said person is conducting business jointly with the Respondent No.1 herein.

5.2.3. He states that with respect to shop No. 676, it was admitted that the possession of the said shop has been recovered from the erstwhile tenant and one of the sons of Respondent No.1 is carrying on his business of crockery and other plastic item from the said shop.

5.3. In the leave to defend application it is further stated tha