The need of the landlords for the tenanted premises for providing commercial accommodation to their adult sons for starting independent business is genuine and the finding of the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners ('tenants') assailing the order dated 01.06.2015, passed by the Additional Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi ('Trial Court'), in Eviction Petition No. E-07/2014, whereby, their application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and the eviction petition filed by the Respondents ('landlords') under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('DRC Act') was allowed with respect to Shop No. 25, Central Road, Bhogal, Jangpura, New Delhi-110014. ('tenanted premises').

1.1. The tenanted premises is situated in property bearing no. 29, Church Lane, Bhogal, Jangpura, New Delhi-110014, which admeasures 342 sq. yards. The said property was originally owned by late Mr. Chhagan Mal and he divided the said property between his two sons i.e., late Mr. Ram Swaroop and late Mr. Kallu Mal. The partition of the said property was made in two equal halves of 171 sq. yards each between the legal heirs of late Mr. Ram Swaroop and late Mr. Kallu Mal, which has been duly recorded in the judgment dated 19.12.2022 passed by the Division Bench in FAO(OS) 137/2022.

1.2. The judgment dated 19.12.2022 records that the legal heirs of late Mr. Ram Swaroop and late Mr. Kallu Mal are in peaceful possession of their respective portions in the said property.

1.3. The Respondents are the legal heirs of late Mr. Ram Swaroop and together are co-owners of 171 sq. yards,which fell onto the share of late Mr. Ram Swaroop. Their inter-se undivided share in the 171 sq. yards is duly recorded in the judgment dated 19.12.2022 passed by the Division Bench in FAO(OS) 137/2022. The tenanted premises are located in the 171 sq. yards, which fell to the share of the Respondents herein; and the said 171 sq. yards forming part of the property known as No. 29, Church Lane, Bhogal, Jangpura, New Delhi-110014 is hereinafter referred to as the 'subject property'.

2. The eviction petition was filed by the three (3) sons of late Mr. Ram Swaroop. During the pendency of the eviction petition one of his sons Mr. Ishwar Dayal Gupta (original Petitioner no. 2) passed away on 11.05.2011 and his legal heirs were brought on record. After the passing of the eviction order and during the pendency of this revision petition another son i.e., Mr. Jage Ram Gupta (original Petitioner no. 3) as well passed away on 04.10.2017 and his legal heirs were brought on record.

3. The eviction petition was instituted on 21.07.2009. The eviction order as noted above was passed on 01.06.2015 and the statutory period of six (6) months for vacating the premises expired on 01.12.2015. The operation of the eviction order was stayed by this Court on 19.01.2016 and the Petitioners were directed by this Court to pay use and occupation charges at Rs.10,000/- per month vide order dated 03.08.2016.

Arguments of the Petitioners, Tenants

4. Mr. Kunal Soni, learned counsel for the Petitioners made the following submissions:

4.1. He states the sons of the landlords are gainfully employed and are carrying on independent business. He refers to the averment at paragraph 6 and 7 of the Annexure to the eviction petition to contend that as is evident from the said pleading, the Respondents have not decided the proposed use of the tenanted premises or identified the individual/family member amongst them, who will occupy the same, upon eviction. He states in these facts, the landlords do not have any bona fide need for the tenanted premises.

4.2. He states that the landlords have available to them alternate accommodation within the 'subject property' and a basement at property no. 71/2, Masjid Road, Bhogal, New Delhi ('Masjid Road Basement property'). He states that therefore, the landlords have sufficient accommodation available with them.

4.3. He states that the landlords have prior to filing the eviction petition sold two (2) shops after recovering the possession of the said shops.

4.4. He states that the Respond