The bona fide need of landlords for their premises outweighs tenant hardship, and tenants cannot dictate terms regarding landlords' use of properties. Eviction upheld on these grounds.

JUDGMENT

NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (ORAL)--The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. The petitioners-tenants impugn the order of eviction dated 05.04.2021 apropos premises no.71, Rajpura Village, Gurmandi, Delhi-07. The premises comprise tin-shed rooms as well as khaprail rooms with open courtyard admeasuring 82x49 ft. The premises were required for the dependent sons of the landlords.

2. The court is informed that Devender Singh has since passed away and his dependent son remains dependent. The tenants had raised various grounds in their application for the leave to defend. Leave has been declined. Among the various properties listed by the tenants, as being available to the landlords, only two are subject matter of this petition and are strenuously argued, as being available to the landlords and that there was a triable issue apropos those properties. They are house no.2/26, Roop Nagar, Delhi and house no.72, village Rajpura, Delhi. Apropos these two properties, the impugned order has adjudicated as under:

"....

18. The petitioners have categorically taken the plea that they do not have any other suitable premises for the business of their sons. In "Mohd. Ayub Vs Mukesh Chand", (2012) 2 SCC 155 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

"That the hardship appellants would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far greater than the hardship the respondent would suffer by having moved out to another place. We are mindful of the fact that whenever the tenant is asked to move out of premises some hardship is inherent. We have noted that the respondent is in occupation of the premises for time. But in our opinion, in the facts of this case that circumstances can not be sole determinative factor."

The respondents have disclosed that the petitioners are having the following properties :-

i) House no. 2/26, Roop Nagar, Delhi,

ii) House no. 3/62, Roop Nagar, Delhi

iii) House no. 72, Village Rajpura, Delhi,

iv) House no.176, Village Rajpura, Delhi,

v) Property no.186, Rajpura, Delhi. However the Petitioners have elaboratly described the status of the above said properties as under :-

a) House no. 2/26, Roop Nagar, Delhi -

The Petitioners alongwith two other brothers were Co-Owners of the said property. It had been devided in two parts A and B. The Part A goes to the Petitioner no.1 and and the Part B goes the another brother namely Ravinder Singh. The Petitioner No.1 and his two marries sons alongwith their families are residing in Part A. and the Top Floor of Part A in under tenancy. The four shops below are also devided among four brothers. The Petitioner no. 2 has already sold his shop with tenant, while the brother Rajinder is doing his work from his shop. And the shop in the share of petitioner no.1 is in occupation of his daughter-in-law and she is running a Homeopathy Clinic from the said shop.

b) House no.3/62, UGF, Roop Nagar, Delhi 110007

This was also a joint property and developed in colaboration with builder, where UGF goes to the share of petitioner no.2 and Top Floor goes to another brother Shri Rajender. Rest of the floors goes to the builder. The Petitioner no.2 is 56 years of age and he is residing at the UGF with his married son namely Narpinder Singh.

c) House no.72 and 176 Village Rajpura, Delhi.

These properties are jointly owned by four brothers and let out to different persons as tenant. The rental income is the only source of income of the petitioners. The said rent is distributed between all four brothers.The said two premises are neither available nor suited to start the business by the sons of the petitioners.

d) Property no.186, Rajpura, Delhi.

This property belongs to th