IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision emphasized the importance of proving a factual foundation for any issue and highlighted the need for proper pleadings and evidence before addressing legal issues.

JUDGMENT

Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.

RC.REV. 592/2019 & CM APPL.45295/2019 [Application seeking interim reliefs]

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/tenant assailing the Order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Shahadra, Karakardooma Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to "Impugned Order"].

1.1. By way of the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has allowed the Eviction Petition filed by the Respondent/landlord, after a full trial in the matter.

2. The brief relevant facts are:

(i) The Respondent/landlord is the owner of property, i.e. one shop on the ground floor admeasuring 13' x 8'6" sq. ft. Being Shop No. B-4, Gali No.5, New Modern Shahdara, Delhi-110032 [hereinafter referred to as the "demised Premises"].

(ii) The Respondent/landlord had filed the Eviction Petition on 20.11.2014 for his own bona fide requirement of his practice as a Ayurvedic and Unani Doctor and for sustaining himself.

(iii) The Respondent/landlord also averred that he does not have any other suitable alternate accommodation available.

(iv) The Leave to Defend Application filed by the Petitioner/tenant, was allowed on 05.11.2015. The Written Statement filed by the Petitioner/tenant contended that there was alternate suitable accommodation available with the Respondent/landlord including possession of three shops on the ground floor out of which one is lying vacant; two shops on ground floor in property bearing no. A-49/B, Jagat Puri, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 admeasuring 100 sq. yds; another property at Sushila Garden admeasuring 100 sq. yards which is also lying locked.

2.1. Evidence was led by both parties before the Trial Court. After hearing both parties, the Impugned Order was passed, allowing the Eviction Petition. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, this Petition has been filed.

3. Notice in the present Revision Petition was issued on 15.10.2019 and thereafter, by the order dated 18.02.2020, a statement of the learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord was recorded, undertaking not to pursue the Execution of the Impugned Order, which is being continued till date. Arguments were heard and Judgment in the present Petition was reserved by this Court.

3.1. The parties were given liberty to file their respective Written Submissions in the matter, which have since been filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant, has submitted the following:

(i) The Respondent/landlord has failed to prove the necessary ingredients enshrined under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 [hereinafter referred as "DRC Act"] and the bona fide requirement as contended by the Respondent/landlord is a mere facade to evict and harass the Petitioner/tenant.

(ii) There are multiple suitable alternate accommodations available with the Respondent/landlord as the Petitioner/tenant is in possession of the entire property admeasuring about 200 sq. yds. There are three shops on the ground floor itself of the suit property out of which, one shop is lying vacant and at the disposal of the Respondent/landlord.

(iii) The Respondent/landlord has not filed the correct site plan with respect to the demised Premises in terms of the provisions of the Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

(iv) An issue of jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller was raised by the Petitioner/tenant. It is averred that the demised Premises in question is not covered under Section 1 (2) of the DRC Act, in as much as the area (i.e., Village Chandrawali) in which the demised Premises is situated, has not been notified under Section 1(2) of the DRC Act. Thus, the learned Rent Controller did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter under the DRC Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mitter Sen Jain v. Shakuntala Devi, (2000) 9 SCC 720 in this regard.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord, in support of his contentions, submitted the following:

(i) The Respondent/landlord is a senior citizen