IMPORTANT POINT
The landlord's bona fide requirement should not be doubted, and the tenant must make out a case showing that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an eviction order.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J.

1. By way of this petition, brought under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the petitioner/tenant has assailed order dated 29.05.2023 of the Additional Rent Controller Delhi, whereby application of the present petitioner for leave to contest the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed and consequently, eviction order against the present petitioner was passed with respect to shop no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") on ground floor for the larger premises bearing no.1716/125, Shanti Nagar, Main Road, Tri Nagar, Delhi. On service of notice, the present respondent/landlord entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. Briefly stated, rival factual matrix and circumstances relevant for present purposes are extracted from record below.

2.1. The present respondent trust, claiming itself to be the owner and landlord of the said larger premises no.1716/125, Shanti Nagar, Main Road, Tri Nagar, Delhi (of which the subject premises are a part), filed an eviction petition through its President against the present petitioner, pleading as follows. The present petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the subject premises for commercial purposes and has been carrying out his business from there for past about 40 years and the last paid rent was Rs.200/- per month, excluding electricity and other charges. The said larger premises is a two storey building, constructed on an area of 200 sq. yards and it has three shops on front side and a big hall on the rear side. The first floor of the said larger premises consists of two halls, which the present respondent lends on license basis to its clients for various public and personal functions. In the front portion on the ground floor of the said larger premises, there are three shops, out of which the subject premises is the middle shop and one of the corner shops is under tenancy of another person while the third shop is in occupation of the present respondent. The present respondent is using the said third shop to maintain office of the trust, to keep its records/accounts, to entertain its clients, to conduct meetings of trustees and to store the articles like utensils, chairs, furniture, beddings, loud speakers and tent material etc. The present respondent is facing space crunch in the said third shop and cannot shift to the rear portion or the upper floors of the said larger premises as that would cause substantial inconvenience to the trustees and clients of the respondent trust. Therefore, the present respondent has bona fide requirement of the subject premises and there is no reasonably suitable alternate premises available to the present respondent.

2.2. On service of summons in the prescribed format, the present petitioner/tenant entered appearance through counsel and filed an application with an affidavit seeking leave to contest the proceedings. In the said affidavit, the present petitioner did not dispute the ownership of the present respondent over the subject premises and the jural relationship of tenancy between the parties. The present petitioner in the said affidavit testified that his father-in-law Sh. Har Swaroop Gupta was a former member of the respondent trust and invested in the trust, so the subject premises were let out to the petitioner; that later on, the petitioner became member of the respondent trust and worked on various posts of office bearers but was unceremoniously removed from membership of the trust after which the trustees filed these proceedings. The present petitioner further testified in the said affidavit that the present respondent admittedly has two more shops on the ground floor of the said larger premises, so the present petitioner who has been running his shop from subject premises for 46 years ought not to be evicted. Besides, the present respondent also has available area in the middle of the groun