IMPORTANT POINT
The landlord's discretion in choosing eviction grounds and the relevance of the premises' use after vacation were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J. - This petition brought under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act assails order dated 19.08.2015 of the learned Rent Controller whereby application of the present petitioner for grant of leave to contest the eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed, holding that no triable issue was raised on behalf of the present petitioner. On service of notice of these proceedings, the present respondents entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes, as extracted from rival pleadings and records are as follows.

2.1. The present respondents, claiming themselves to be the owner of property bearing No. WZ-883, Khazan Basti, Part of property No. WZ-2, Nangal Raya, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act seeking eviction of the present petitioner/tenant, pleading therein that the present respondent no. 1 aged about 56 years had suffered a heart attack and knee problems, due to which she is unable to move; that the present respondents no. 2 and 3 are her married sons; that the present respondent no. 2 has two daughters while the present respondent no.3 has one daughter; that the petitioners are residing in property bearing No WZ-1549 Khazan Basti, Nangal Raya, New Delhi consisting of ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor, each floor consisting of one bedroom, one drawing room cum lobby and one bathroom and one toilet; that the said residential accommodation under occupation of the present respondents is not sufficient for them insofar as the present respondent no. 1 requires one puja room and a bedroom, the present respondent no. 2 requires one bedroom for himself and for his wife and two bedrooms for his children, and the present respondent no. 3 requires one bedroom for himself and his wife and one bedroom for his daughter, in addition to which the present respondents also require one drawing room and one dining room; that the present respondents also need one additional bedroom for visiting relatives; that the subject premises are in dilapidated condition, so the present respondents intend to get the subject premises demolished after the same are vacated and thereafter reconstruct the same according to their requirement; that the present respondents have no other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation.

2.2. On being served with summons in the prescribed format, the present petitioner filed an application seeking leave to contest the proceedings. In his affidavit seeking leave to contest, the present petitioner did not dispute the ownership of the present respondents over the subject premises and the relationship of tenancy between the parties, and testified that the present respondents intend to demolish the entire larger premises including the subject premises and construct multiple shops in the same for commercial benefit; and that the area of the subject premises is not sufficient enough to meet the requirement projected by the present respondents.

2.3. In their reply to the leave to contest application, the present respondents reaffirmed their pleadings of eviction petition and denied that after demolition of the subject premises, they would construct shops for commercial benefits. That followed a rejoinder from the present petitioner, reiterating his stand as taken in the application for leave to contest.

2.4. After hearing both sides in the backdrop of above mentioned rival pleadings, learned Rent Controller passed the impugned order, thereby dismissing the application for leave to contest. In the impugned eviction order, the learned Rent Controller after detailed discussion delivered the findings that ownership of the present respondents over the subject premises and jural relationship of tenancy between the parties was not in dispute; that the contention of the present petitioner to