IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to demonstrate a landlord's bona fide need for possession of premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the consideration of subsequent events in assessing this requirement.

ORDER

Tara Vitasta Ganju, J. - The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/tenants impugning the Order dated 24.11.2018 passed by the learned Administrative Civil Judge-cum-Additional Rent Controller (Central), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"] in respect to Shop/Room No. 14, Ground Floor, part of building/premises No. 3917, Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, Delhi -110006 [hereinafter referred to as "demised premises"].

2. By way of the Impugned Order, the Application for Leave to Defend/Contest filed by the Petitioners/tenants, has been dismissed and the Eviction Petition filed before the Trial Court under Section 14 (1)(e) [hereinafter referred to as "Eviction Petition"] of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as the "the Act"] has been allowed.

3. Briefly the facts are, the demised premises forms part of the ground floor of building/premises No. 3917, Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, Delhi. [hereinafter referred to as "subject building"]. The Respondents/landlords are three brothers who jointly own the demised premises and each of them reside on separate floors of the subject building with their wives and children.

3.1 The subject building contains four shops on the ground floor of which the demised premises is one. The Respondents/landlords have set out their requirement in the Eviction Petition which is to expand their respective businesses. It has been contended as follows:

(i) Respondent No.1, together with his spouse and two children, currently occupy a single room, one bedroom, and one kitchen/store located on the second floor of the subject building. The single room functions as the operational office for Respondent No.1, from wherein he runs his business of re-charge coupons and facilities for satellite television providers. Consequently, his family is compelled to reside in the remaining space, which is inadequate. It is argued that the premises in question are essential for the efficient operation of his business and to afford adequate living space for his children.

(ii) It is stated in the Eviction Petition that Respondent No.2 along with his wife and child inhabit a single bedroom and a kitchen/store on the first floor, and a drawing room on the second floor of the subject building. Respondent No.2 requires to initiate a new venture focused on goods transportation, thus, necessitating a warehouse, for which the demised premises is sought.

(iii) The spouse of Respondent No. 2 possesses qualifications as a Textile Designer and has aspirations to establish a boutique specializing in ladies wear, contributing to the family's financial support. The demised premises being in close proximity to her residence will enable her to operate the business while being next to the family.

(iv) Respondent No. 3, together with his wife and twin sons, occupies the third floor of the subject building, consisting of one bedroom, one drawing room, one kitchen, and one store. Respondent No.3 is engaged in the trading of "SS Pipe Fittings," Respondent No.3 requires space for stock storage due to the nature of the business. While the business is currently conducted from another shop owned by Respondent No.3, the available space in that establishment is insufficient for adequately storing the inventory.

4. An Application for Leave to Defend/Contest was filed by the Petitioners/tenants [hereinafter referred to as "Application"], contending that bona fide need of Respondents/landlords is vague and unsubstantiated. The Respondents/landlords are already part of various business ventures, which can be used to satisfy their needs. Additionally, the subject building is a big Haveli, and, there is sufficient vacant space on the ground floor apart from the demised premises, hence, triable issues have been raised for grant of Leave to Defend.

5. By the Impugned Order, the Application was dismissed as the Trial Court held that no triable issues were raised by the Petitioners/tenants. It was held that the other business ven