The main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord's bona fide need for the tenanted premises must be objectively assessed, and the suitability of alternative accommodations must be considered in light of the business requirements.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners, tenants, assailing the eviction order dated 23.03.2019, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ('Trial Court'), in Eviction Petition No. E-150/16 (New No. 15/17), whereby the application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and the eviction petition filed by the Respondent, landlady, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('DRC Act'), was allowed.

2. The Respondent, landlady, is stated to be the owner of the entire property bearing No. 1814-1815, ward No. IV, Chandni Chowk, Delhi ('subject property') which comprises of a Ground Floor ('GF'), Mezzanine Floor (also referred to as dochatti/loft), First Floor ('FF'), Second Floor ('SF') and Third Floor ('TF').

3. The Respondent filed the eviction petition for recovery of the commercial premises being ground floor, mezzanine floor and third floor of property No. 1814-1815, ward No. IV, Chandni Chowk, Delhi ('tenanted premises') located in the subject property.

4. The eviction petition was filed by the landlady on the plea that she has a bona fide need for her grandson i.e., Mr. Kanishk Gupta, who has recently graduated and wants to establish, run and operate his own business or join the landlady in her existing business and expand the said business, from the tenanted premises. It was asserted that there is no other commercial property owned by the landlady. It was further asserted that the landlady is carrying on business of sale of women's wear from the FF and SF of the subject property; however, due to the dilapidated condition of the building and the narrow staircase leading to the upper floors, the customers are unwilling to reach the FF for shopping.

5. The eviction petition was resisted by the Petitioners herein, who sought leave to defend on several grounds including the assertion of the Respondent that she is the owner and landlady. However, before this Court, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has restricted his oral submissions to assail the findings with respect to bona fide need on the plea that FF and SF of the subject property are lying vacant and are therefore, available to the landlady for the alleged business of her grandson.

6. The Trial Court after considering the submissions of the parties held that the Respondent is the owner as well as landlady in respect of the tenanted premises. The Trial Court further held that the tenanted premises is bona fide required for the business of grandson. The Trial Court rejected the submission of the Petitioners herein that the landlady has suitable alternative accommodation on the FF and SF of the subject property. The Trial Court relied upon the photographs placed on record to opine that the FF and SF are in a dilapidated condition. The Trial Court, further, held that there is no parity between a commercial premises located on ground floor vis-a-vis upper floors. In light of the aforesaid facts and findings, the Trial Court rejected the application seeking leave to defend and passed the impugned eviction order.

Arguments of the Petitioners, Tenants

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, tenants, states that the tenanted premises are not bona fide required by the Respondent, landlady, inasmuch as her grandson, for whose bona fide need the tenanted premises are required, is working as relationship manager in the HDFC Bank branch at A-9, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi. The said fact has been pleaded by way of CM APPL. No. 6890/2020 filed during the pendency of the present revision petition.

7.1. He states that the FF and SF of the subject property were recovered by the Respondent, landlady, in May, 2013, in an eviction petition (E106/ 13/09) filed by her under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. He states that however, the said floors (FF and SF) are not being used for the business of women's wear as alleged in the subject eviction petition and the same are lyi