IMPORTANT POINT
The crucial date for assessing the landlord's bona fide requirement is the date of institution of the eviction petition, and subsequent events may impact the rights and obligations of the parties.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J. - By way of this petition brought under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the petitioner/tenant has assailed order dated 10.04.2023 of the learned Rent Controller, Karkardooma, Delhi in RC/ARC No. 153/2016 whereby his application seeking leave to contest in the eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed and consequently an eviction order in respect of shops No. 4 & 5 (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises"), situated on the ground floor of the larger premises bearing No. 318-319/4-5, New No. 12A/102/D, Maujpur, Gali 1, Shahdara, Delhi was passed. On service of notice, the respondent/landlord entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. At the outset, for convenience, the relevant part of order dated 24.01.2024 passed in this case is extracted below:

"RC.REV. 293/2023 & CM APPL. 54329/2023 (stay)

4. At request of both sides, final arguments heard and concluded. The petitioner has assailed order of learned Additional Rent Controller whereby leave to contest was declined and eviction order was passed. Vide order dated 21.12.2023, the predecessor bench directed that no coercive steps be taken to evict the petitioner/tenant from the subject premises.

5. In support of his case, learned counsel for petitioner has raised only one argument that respondent no. 2, for whose bona fide necessity to run a boutique was pleaded has got married and shifted to Pakistan, so the bona fide necessity ceases. However, in the course of further arguments, learned counsel for petitioner also admitted that respondent no. 2 still remains in India though she is married to a Pakistani national, so she would ultimately follow her husband there. No other argument has been raised.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that this issue has been dealt with in detail in the impugned order and there is no infirmity in the same. Besides, according to learned counsel for respondents the subject premises are lying locked for the past three years.

7. Accordingly final arguments stand concluded. Judgment reserved".

3. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows.

3.1. The present respondents, claiming themselves to be the owner of the larger premises filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, pleading that the present petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the subject premises by their mother, after whose death, they became co-owner of the larger premises, on the first and second floor whereof they are residing; that the present respondent no. 1 is aged about 30 years and married, having one child and the present respondent no. 2 is aged about 23 years while the present respondent no. 3 who is aged about 33 years is engaged in business of opticals under the name and style Casa Optics at Ballimaran, Delhi in a rented accommodation; that earlier, the petitioner/tenant was working as a scrap dealer from the subject premises but he closed down the same and for past more than three years, the subject premises are lying locked; that the present petitioner/tenant is now running a mutton shop under the name and style of Dawat-E-Chaman in Darya Ganj; that due to paucity of money for their survival, the present respondent no. 2 with the help of the present respondent no. 1 wants to start business of boutique from the subject premises and they have no reasonably suitable alternate accommodation for the same; that the other ground floor shops bearing No. 1, 2 and 3 and the remaining shops in the larger premises are in possession of other tenants.

3.2. On being served with the summons in the prescribed format, the petitioner/tenant filed application seeking leave to contest the petition, pleading broadly that the requirement of the present respondents/landlords is not bona fide as they are very rich persons with substantial r