IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies on the respondent to show the availability of alternative suitable accommodation, and the court must presume the landlord's need as genuine and bona fide unless refuted with strong and cogent evidence.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. - The instant revision petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as DRC Act') seeking setting aside of the order dated 17.03.2018 passed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC, Pilot Court (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Case No. E-211/17 and Regd. ID No. 231/17 titled as "Sh. Rajiv Mehra & Another vs. Sh. Ravi Bhushan".

2. As per the impugned order, the eviction petition filed by the petitioners/landlord against their respondent/tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act was dismissed on the ground of available suitable alternative accommodation.

BREIF FACTS LEADING TO THE INSTANT REVISION PETITION

3. The eviction petition was filed by the petitioners against the respondent under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act for vacation of premises being First Floor portion of property bearing Municipal No. 4680, Mahavir Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Church Mission Road, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred as 'demised premises').

4. Petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 are siblings and have acquired the demised premises from their father Shri. Devi Swarup Mehrotra. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 are the co-owners/landlords of the property bearing Municipal no. 4680, First Floor and Second floor situated at Mahavir Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Church Mission Road, Delhi.

5. The respondent is a tenant in the demised premises. The bonafide requirement has been described that the petitioner No.2 has a grown up son namely Rahul aged about 26 years (at the time of filing the eviction petition in the year 2017). He is educated and has completed his MBA course. The petitioner no. 2 requires the demised premises bonafidely for her son namely Rahul who intends to start his cloth business in the demised premises to establish his career. It has further been stated that the demised premises is situated in a well-known cloth market and is most suitable for the son of the petitioner No.2 to start his own business. The petitioner No.2 has no other reasonable, suitable alternate accommodation except the demised premises.

6. As regards with the other accommodations are concerned, the petitioners have mentioned them in the eviction petition with their status as under:-

a) Petitioners are the co-owners/joint owners of the property bearing shop no. 826/20, Ground floor, New Krishna Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006 where the wife of the petitioner No.1 i.e. Smt. Rashmi Mehra and the petitioner No.2 are jointly doing business of cloth merchant in partnership with each other.

b) Petitioners are also the co-owners of the property bearing no. 1523 to 1530, Ballimaran, Gali Qasim Jaan, Delhi - 110006 which is fully occupied by old tenants, not even a single inch of space/area in the said property is vacant or is available at the disposal of the petitioners and anyways is not suitable for the purpose of running a cloth business.

c) Property bearing no. 4683 (East) situated at Mahavir Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Church Mission Road, Delhi.

7. Based on this bonafide requirement and no other reasonable, alternative, suitable accommodation except the demised premises, prayer was made for eviction from the demised premises.

8. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the respondent filed leave to defend application which was allowed vide order dated 09.06.2017 and the respondent was granted unconditional leave to contest the eviction petition.

9. The respondent filed a written statement, wherein the respondent disputed the site plan filed by the petitioners. Further it was admitted that respondent had taken the demised premises on rent.

10. It was further stated that the petitioners had earlier filed a petition under Section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(j) of the DRC Act and therein the respondent had filed a correct site plan in those proceedings where petitioners themselves admitted the said site plan.

11. It has also been stated that the premises were let