The Court emphasized the objective of speedy possession for landlords under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and found that the tenant's prolonged proceedings and subsequent review petition were an abuse of the legal process, leading to a protracted eviction process.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral):

1. This petition has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, tenant assailing the eviction order dated 17.12.2021 (`eviction order') passed by the Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in RC ARC No. 77870/16, whereby the tenant's application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and the impugned eviction order was passed in respect of commercial property bearing No. 1192, Chatta Madan Gopal, Maliwara (Chandni Chowk), Delhi - 110006 (`tenanted premises').

2. This eviction petition was filed by the Respondents, on 15.09.2012, under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`DRC Act') on the ground of bona fide use of the entire ground floor which includes property Nos. 1188-92, situated at Chatta Madan Gopal, Maliwara (Chandni Chowk) Delhi - 110006 (`subject property'), for expanding their existing jewellery business, which is currently being carried out from the rear portion in the subject property, which is a small area and has a very narrow access.

3. The tenant on 12.03.2013 filed an application under Section 25(B)(4) of the DRC Act, seeking leave to contest the eviction petition. The said application remained pending for nine (9) years, and the Trial Court vide order dated 17.12.2021 dismissed the tenant's application for leave to defend and granted him the statutory period of six months for vacating the tenanted premises i.e. until 17.05.2022.

4. The tenant i.e., Shri Bhai Gopal Dass, passed away during the pendency of the eviction proceedings and his legal heirs, who were in occupation of the tenanted premises, failed to vacate the same on or before 17.05.2022. The present revision petition has been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased, tenant and are hereinafter referred to as the `Petitioners'.

5. The Petitioners, as noted above, neither vacated the tenanted premises nor filed a revision petition assailing the said eviction order. Instead, the Petitioners filed a review application before the Trial Court on 06.04.2022, contending that the impugned eviction order is non-est as the legal representatives of the deceased tenant were not brought on record during the pendency of the eviction petition. The review application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 16.11.2022.

6. This revision petition, as noted above, has been filed by the legal heirs of late Shri Bhai Gopal Dass, and to this effect, an amended memo of parties was also filed on 21.01.2023. This matter was first listed for hearing on 22.12.2022, whereupon, the learned counsel for the Petitioners fairly conceded that the legal representative, Mr. Krishan Kumar, i.e., Petitioner No. 1, was duly prosecuting the leave to defend in the eviction proceedings, even after, the demise of the Petitioner herein i.e., late Shri Bhai Gopal Dass.

7. In view of the fact that Petitioner No.1 i.e., Mr. Krishan Kumar had been filing pleadings affirmed by him and prosecuting the eviction petition after the demise of late Shri Bhai Gopal Dass and had elected to not inform the Trial Court about the death of his father, the Petitioners fairly withdrew the objection that the impugned eviction order is defective or non-est on account of the legal heirs of the deceased, tenant not being formally brought on record. Accordingly, this issue was not pressed by the Petitioners and this has been duly recorded in the order dated 22.12.2022.

Arguments of the Petitioner

8. The learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Shantanu Awasthi, has made the following submissions to impugn the eviction order and has relied upon the tabulation filed on 23.01.2023, with respect to the availability of suitable additional accommodation with the Respondents, landlords:

8.1. He states that in the said tabulation, the Petitioner herein has enumerated four (4) suitable alternate accommodations, which are available with the Respondents and he therefore, states that the