The landlord's bona fide need and the absence of suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant are crucial factors in determining eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT

Sachin Datta, J. The present petition is directed against the impugned order/judgment 15.01.2018 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (West District) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby, the learned Rent Controller has allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord herein under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

2. Accordingly, an eviction order has been passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner herein, directing the petitioner to hand-over the vacant and peaceful possession of the Shop No. 5, U shape, situated in property bearing No. 5A/1 Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").

3. In the eviction petition filed on behalf of the respondent, it was averred that the tenanted premises was purchased by the respondent vide registered sale deed dated 10.03.2011 along with other adjoining shop admeasuring 12x7.5 feet on the ground floor of the property bearing No. 5A/1 Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "adjoining shop"). At the time of said purchase, the petitioner herein was already a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises. It was stated by the respondent in the eviction petition that upon the respondent becoming the owner of the tenanted premises, the petitioner accepted the respondent to be the owner/landlord in respect thereof.

4. It was specifically averred in the eviction petition that the respondent/landlord is not in a position to use the adjoining shop; the reasons for the same were stated to be as under:

"5. That the adjoining shop is measuring about 12x7.5 ft. is in possession of the petitioner but there is only one common shutter in respect of both the shops and the petitioner has requested the respondent to construct a partition wall and have a separate entrance of both the shops but the respondent had refused to accede the legitimate request of the petitioner.

xxx xxx xxx

12. That the adjoining shop which is in possession of the petitioner could not be used for the said business because the shop is so small and no business can be carried out in the said shop and even otherwise, there is only one shutter and a temporary wall in between the two portions and the said portion is also not available because the respondent is not allowing the petitioner to use the said shop and he further threatened that in case the petitioner would enter into the said shop, then in that event, he threatened that he would involve the petitioner in false and frivolous criminal cases and as such, the petitioner requires the said shop bona fide for himself as well as for this two sons to run the business so that the petitioner may maintain the family."

5. It was further averred by the respondent/landlord in the eviction petition as under:

"9. That the petitioner's family comprised of himself, his wife his son Sh. Sagar Arora, -aged, about 29 years who is unmarried, son Sh. Nitin Arora, aged about 26 years who is unmarried and the father of the petitioner who is a senior Citizen, aged about 83 years.

10. That both the sons of the petitioner are totally depending upon the petitioner and they are living with the petitioner as a member of the joint family and both the sons of the petitioner are helping the petitioner in connection with the business of the sale and purchase of the cars at Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi.

11. That the eldest son of the petitioner namely Shri Sagar Arora is of marriageable age and his marriage could not be solemnized due to non availability of the commercial premises because he is unemployed and has been helping the petitioner in connection with the said business and the petitioner wants to set up his own business in the shop in possession of the respondent along with his son who would help the petitioner in connection with the said business.

12....

13. That the petitioner under compelling circumstances had taken the said premises on rent and the said shop which is in the tena