The main legal point established is that the landlord's bona fide need for the premises, as per Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, was proven, and the tenant's claim of availability of alternate accommodation was not substantiated.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed by the Petitioner, tenant, assailing the eviction order dated 11.07.2017, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court'), in RC ARC No. 7231/15, wherein post-trial, the eviction petition filed by the Respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`DRC Act') was allowed with respect to a shop in property bearing no. C108, Prem Vihar, Shiv Vihar, Gali No.8, Karwal Nagar, Delhi-110094 (`tenanted premises').

2. The eviction petition was instituted on 10.10.2014 by the Respondent, landlord, who is a retired government servant, for the bona fide need of himself and his handicapped son, who suffers from 70% disability, to start independent business of photocopy and stationary

3. The Petitioner's application seeking leave to defend was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 03.07.2015, on the ground of availability of alternate accommodation with the Respondent in the form of an adjoining shop. The matter was set down for trial and evidence was led by both the parties. The Trial Court after evaluating the evidence concluded that the Respondent, landlord, does not have any suitable alternate accommodation available to him and the adjoining structure, in fact, as per the admission of the Petitioner, tenant, in his cross examination of PW-2 is lying in a state of disuse and is without a roof.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner during the course of oral arguments in present petition has reagitated the issue of availability of the adjoining shop with the Respondent and in this regard he has placed reliance on the cross examination of PW-2 i.e., Mr. Ashok Kumar, son of the landlord. He relies upon the cross examination to contend that PW-2 has admitted that two shops exist in the property bearing no. C-108, Prem Vihar, Shiv Vihar, Gali No.8, Karwal Nagar, Delhi-110094 (`subject property') as on the said date. He states that in view of the said admission made by PW-2, the Respondent has available with him the adjoining shop, which is suitable and since it is not being used by the landlord, he does not have a bona fide need for the tenanted premises.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent states that the plea of availability alternate accommodation is incorrect. He has relied upon the evidence led by the Petitioner, tenant herein, who stepped in the witness box as RW1.

5.1. He relies upon the cross examination of RW1, wherein RW1 has admitted that the adjoining shop, which is alleged to be the alternate accommodation, is closed from all four sides with walls and does not even have a roof. He states that the said structure is in a dilapidated condition and cannot be used as a shop.

5.2. He reiterates that the Respondent herein is now 76 years old and he requires the shop bona fide for himself and his handicapped son, who suffers from 70% disability. He states that the Respondent's son was 39 years old in 2015, when the eviction petition was filed and is now 47 years old and therefore, even more in need of the tenanted premises as on today.

6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties, and has perused the impugned eviction order dated 11.07.2017.

7. With respect to the existence of landlord and tenant relationship, the Trial Court has returned the following finding:

"12. In the case in hand, respondent apart from the pleadings admitted in his evidence that shop in question was purchased by petitioner from erstwhile owner. As such, he did not dispute the factum of petitioner being owner of shop in question. Further, he did not dispute the fact that he is not paying rent to petitioner. So, the factum of petitioner being owner and landlord of respondent, as such, was not disputed by respondent. Coupled with the same, this Court had found existence of said relationship vide its order dated 03.07.2015 while allowing the application for leave to defend wh