IMPORTANT POINT
The court recognized the landlord's prerogative to determine their specific requirements and refrained from imposing directives on the landlord regarding the nature or quality of their chosen usage of the tenanted premises.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. - This is a petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 10.03.2016 in E.No. 1098/14/11 passed by the learned ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi titled as "Sh. Mulak Raj and others v. Sh. Bishambar Dayal & Sons and Anr" whereby the application of the petitioners for leave to defend was dismissed and the petition filed by the respondents under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") was allowed.

2. The petitioners are the tenants and the respondents are the landlords of Property No. 1226, 1st Floor, Kacha Bagh, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").

3. Respondent no.1 (Mr. Mulak Raj) is the son of Late Mr. Panna Lal. Respondent no.2 (Mr. Deepak Kumar), respondent no.3 (Mr. Mukesh Kumar) and respondent no.4 (Mr. Sunil Kumar Kamboj) are the sons of respondent no.1.

4. Mr. Amit Kamboj and Mr. Rohit Kamboj are the sons of respondent no.2; Mr. Gaurav Kamboj and Mr. Himanshu Kamboj are the sons of respondent no.3; Mr. Uday Kamboj and Mr. Akshay Kamboj are the sons of respondent no.4.

BRIEF FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT PETITION

5. The tenanted premises was purchased by one Late. Mr. Panna Lal from the Government of India. Vide will dated 18.11.1986, the tenanted premises devolved in the favour of the respondents and Mr. Ashok Kumar (brother of the respondents). Subsequently, Mr. Ashok Kumar gave up all his rights, title and interest in the tenanted premises in favour of the respondents in the year 2000 and thus, the respondents become the joint owners of the tenanted premises.

6. The respondents filed an Eviction Petition u/s 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of the DRC Act on the ground that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required by the respondents and their respective family members, i.e. their respective sons for carrying out their business/commercial activities. The bona fide need as stated in the Eviction Petition reads as under:-

"xvi) That the petitioner No.1 Shri Mulakh Raj is about 80 years of age and is residing on the second floor and third floor of the suit premises which is exclusively ment for residential purpose.

xvii) That the petitioner No.2 Shri Deepak Kumar is about 61 years of age and has two sons namely; Amit Kamboj and Rohit Kamboj both aged about 33 and 35 years respectively. Both sons of petitioner No.2 are married, having their respective families.

xviii) That the petitioner No.2 is carrying on his business in partnership along with Petitioner No.3 Shri Mukesh Kumar under the name and style of M/s Panna Lai and Roshan Lal Jewellers from Shop No. 1223, Kacha Bagh, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.

xix) That sons of the petitioner No.2 as of today are dependent on their father for business premises. They have no other suitable business accommodation with them Delhi.

xx) That the petitioner No.3 is aged about 58 years and is carrying on his business in partnership along with the petitioner No.2 Shri Deepak Kumar under the name and style of M/s Panna Lai Roshan Lal Jewellers from Shop No. No.1223, Kacha Bagh, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.

xxi) That the petitioner No.3 has two sons namely; Gaurav Kamboj and Himanshu Kamboj aged about 32 & 28 respectively, both sons of petitioner No.3 are married having their respective families.

xxii) That sons of the petitioner No.3 as of today are dependent on their father for business premises. They have no other suitable business accommodation with them in Delhi.

xxiii) That the petitioner No.4 Sunil Kumar Kamboj is about 52 years of age and is presently in Australia. He has two sons namely; Uday Kamboj and Akshay Kamboj both aged about 26 and 21 years respectively.

xxiv)That the petitioner No.4 along with his family wants to return back to India and settle down in Delhi. They have no other suitable business accommodation with them in Delhi.

xxv) That the petitioner requires bonafide the suit premises for themselves and for their respective family members dependant upon