IMPORTANT POINT
The landlord's bonafide need for the tenanted premises, the landlord's subjective choice in selecting suitable accommodation, and the limited scope of the court's revisional jurisdiction were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. - This is a petition seeking setting aside of the order and judgment dated 28.04.2018 passed by the learned ARC in Eviction Petition No. 6338/2016 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter "DRC Act"), whereby an eviction order has been passed in favor of the respondent-landlord in respect of property bearing Shop No. 1 (measuring 269 sq. ft.), Ground Floor, S-15, Green Park (Main), New Delhi - 110016 (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises/Shop No.1").

Background

2. In March 2012, the respondent preferred an eviction petition in respect of the tenanted premises under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the DRC Act for his bonafide need to start a consultancy for himself and a boutique for his wife, Mrs. Neelum Nayyar. It is stated in the eviction petition that the respondent is a qualified engineer and has been doing consultation work post retirement, and he wishes to start his own consultancy work. The respondent's wife is a homemaker but has experience in garment manufacturing and wants to open a boutique. It is further stated that the respondent does not have any other suitable place except for the tenanted premises and one other adjoining shop i.e. Shop No. 2 (measuring 272 sq. ft.), Ground Floor, S-15, Green Park (Main), New Delhi - 110016 (hereinafter referred to as "Shop No. 2") which also is in possession of another tenant against whom the respondent had filed a separate petition [E. No. 6337/2016 (erstwhile E. No. 18/12)] for getting it vacated.

3. Leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner-tenant, who was granted the leave to contest the petition vide order dated 27.11.2014.

4. The petitioner filed a written statement raising the following substantial grounds, inter alia: a) that the eviction petition is non-maintainable on the grounds that the respondent was not the exclusive owner of the tenanted premises, that there is a dispute between the respondent and other co-owners of the property, and thus the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; b) that the respondent has not proved his ownership qua the tenanted premises; c) that the respondent wants to let out the tenanted premises at a higher rent after evicting the petitioner, and that no notice was sent to or refused by the respondent; d) that the respondent is not retired/drawing pension; e) that the necessary ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act have not been complied with and the bonafide requirement of the respondent is false and without any substance; f) that the wife of the respondent does not have any past experience or qualification for running a business against her alleged bonafide requirement; g) that the respondent has three alternate premises available for commercial purposes.

5. The respondent filed a replication, denying the allegations made in the written statement and reiterating the contents of the eviction petition.

6. The respondent examined himself as PW1 and his wife, Mrs. Neelum Nayyar, as PW2. They were duly cross-examined. The petitioner examined herself as RW1 and was duly cross-examined. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner-tenant Ms. Rajni Bahl expired and her LRs were brought on record. Witnesses, namely, Mr. Bhagirath Lal and Mr. Bhuvan Sharma were examined as RW2 and RW3 respectively and were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, final arguments were addressed on behalf of both parties.

ARC's Findings

7. On 28.04.2018, the impugned eviction order was passed post-trial, wherein the learned ARC iterated the essential ingredients for a petition to succeed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, namely: a) the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, including the ownership of the tenanted premises with the landlord; b) bonafide requirement of the owner/landlord for accommodation for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him; and c) non-availability of any other reasonably suitable accommod