IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the landlord's right to eviction through summary proceedings and the tenant's obligation to provide evidence to support claims at the stage of seeking leave to contest.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J. - By way of this petition, brought under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioners have assailed order dated 24.02.2016 of the learned Rent Controller Delhi, whereby application of the present petitioners/tenants seeking leave to contest the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed and consequently the eviction order in respect of ground floor of the premises bearing private no. 523-524, Kucha Pati Ram, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") was passed against the present petitioners/tenants. On service of notice, the present respondents/landlords entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. Briefly stated, rival factual matrix, relevant for present purposes is extracted from pleadings below.

2.1 The present respondents, claiming themselves to be the co-owners of the entire larger premises No. 523-524, Kucha Pati Ram, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor with a portion on ground floor beneath the staircase filed eviction petition against the present petitioners under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with following pleadings. The subject premises, being ground floor of the said larger premises, was assigned Municipal No. 523 while the upper portion of the larger premises was assigned the No. 524. By virtue of Rent Deed dated 08.11.1993 the present petitioners were inducted as tenants in the subject premises for commercial purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- excluding other charges, which rent was enhanced over a period of time to Rs. 804/-per month. The subject premises are now required by the present respondents for their own use and for the use of their family members as they have no reasonably suitable alternate accommodation. The present respondent no. 1, aged about 60 years and unmarried, has been occupying one room on first floor above the subject premises, but now on account of multiple diseases he is unable to climb stairs so he needs accommodation on the ground floor. The present respondent no. 2 with his wife and children is staying in two rooms on second floor of the larger premises and his elder son aged 26 years is engaged in petty private job while his daughter aged 24 years is marriageable. The present respondent no. 3 is residing in the third room on the second floor of the larger premises with his wife, a daughter aged 20 years and a son aged 19 years. The said first three respondents are sharing a common kitchen, latrine and bathroom. The present respondent no. 4 is staying in one room on first floor of the said larger premises with his wife and two sons aged 16 and 14 years. The present respondent no. 2 is engaged in private job and the present respondent no. 3 is engaged in business of job work of lamination (related to printing press), for which he has to keep his small machine in verandah at first floor and some time on the second floor of the said larger premises, while the present respondent no. 4 is an electrician, working mostly at the premises of his customers but has no commercial space to run his business of electric goods. Children of the present respondents no. 2-4, being grown up, also need a reasonable accommodation for themselves. On the other hand, the present petitioners already own property No. 839-840, Kucha Pati Ram, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi, so would not be put to any inconvenience, if evicted from the subject premises.

2.2 On service of summons in the prescribed format, the present petitioners/tenants filed an application on affidavits seeking leave to contest the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, testifying as follows. Earlier, the present respondents had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act but not under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, which shows that their requirement is not bona fide. The requirement of the subject premises pleaded in the eviction petition is too va