The landlord's bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises is to be judged based on preference and suitability for the intended business, and the employment status of dependent family members does not foreclose the landlord's right to seek eviction.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.

1. The present eviction petition has been filed by the tenants assailing the order dated 29.08.2022, passed by the SCJ acting as Rent Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ('Trial Court'), in RC ARC No. 25471/2016, wherein, post-trial, the eviction petition filed by the Respondent, landlord, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('DRC Act') has been allowed.

2. Brief facts as stated by the Respondent, landlord, in the eviction petition filed on 11.09.2014 are as under:

2.1. It is stated that late Sh. Gulshan Nagpal and his son i.e., Petitioner No.1, were inducted as tenants, vide a written rent agreement dated 08.10.1991, in the tenanted premises bearing shop No.1, measuring 8' x 17', located at the ground floor of property No. WX-31C, Jawala Heri Market, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi - 110063 ('tenanted premises') and facing the main road. The Petitioners herein are the legal heirs of late Sh. Gulshan Nagpal.

2.2. It is stated that the tenanted premises are required for the bona fide need of the landlord's son, Mr. Sidharth Sharma, who is unemployed and wants to run his own real estate business. It is further stated that the tenanted premises is also required for the bona fide need of the landlord's widowed daughter who wants to run a business to earn and maintain herself.

2.3. It is stated that the Respondent is the owner of the property bearing No. WX-31C, Jawala Heri Market, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi - 110063 ('subject property'), wherein on the ground floor there are ten (10) shops i.e., shop Nos. 1 to 10. It is stated that shop No.10 is being used by the Respondent for running his own business and shop No. 9 is used as a godown. It is stated that the remaining shops bearing Nos. 2 to 8, have already been let out to other tenants.

2.4. It is stated that the entire first floor of the subject property has been let out on rent to the Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank Ltd. However, it has come on record that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the said bank has vacated the first floor and the same is being used by the Respondent, landlord, for his personal use.

2.5. It is stated that the Respondent along with his family members, is residing at the second floor of the subject property.

2.6. It is stated that the Respondent has no other suitable alternative accommodation for the bona fide need of his son and daughter other than the tenanted premises.

3. The leave to defend application filed by the Petitioners was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 23.07.2016 and the Petitioners herein were granted leave to contest the present eviction petition.

Arguments of the Petitioners, tenants

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners, tenants, states that the bona fide requirement alleged by the Respondent is not genuine inasmuch as his daughter has since remarried and is settled at her matrimonial home at Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. He relies upon the oral testimony of RW2 i.e., the neighbour of Respondent, to raise the plea of remarriage of the daughter since this fact was vehemently disputed by the landlord.

4.1. He similarly states that the Respondent's son is already running a business of real estate/property dealing at Peera Garhi, Delhi, in the name of 'Ridhi Sidhi Builders & Developers' and therefore, the plea of bona fide requirement on behalf of the son is also not made out.

4.2. With respect to the availability of alternate accommodation, he states that that Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Respondent during his cross-examination admitted that the first floor which was earlier let out to the Vaish Co-operative Adarsh Bank Ltd., was vacated in terms of order dated 02.05.2018 passed by this Court in RFA No.127/2017 and the same is now available with the Respondent as alternate accommodation for his son and daughter.

4.3. He states that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that shop Nos. 2 to 8 on the ground floor of the subject property