The landlord must show bona fide need for the premises, and vague denials from the tenant cannot establish a genuine dispute or require trial.

ORDER

Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)

The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

1. The petitioner/tenant impugns the order of eviction dated 22.02.2021, on the ground that the landlord has not specifically denied the tenant's contention regarding his two sons - for whose benefit the tenanted property was sought, nor has the landlord stated anything apropos the other properties owned by him. The impugned order has dealt with the petitioner's contentions inter alia as under:

".....3. In the leave to defend application along with the accompanying affidavit filed by respondent, it is stated that the petitioner has no-where pleaded that he is the owner of the tenanted premises which is necessary ingredient to be pleaded by the petitioner and for this reason the present petition is liable to be dismissed. The petition is also not maintainable as petitioner has himself has stated that the tenanted premises is in dangerous condition and thus the same cannot be used in the present condition. The petitioner has concealed the material fact that suit is filed by the respondent for declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of shop bearing no. 2 in property no. 348/8, Jai Complex, Shiva Market, Pitampura which the petitioner along with his brother got demolished in connivance with the officials of North MCD without notice to the respondent. The adjoining two shops are used by the respondent as godown and another shop of one Vidyawati were got demolished by the petitioner and his brother. The present petition is filed by the petitioner in counterblast to the said suit filed by the respondent. As the petitioner has concealed the factum of the pendency of the suit with the respondent, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner does not require the tenanted premises for any bona fide reason. The petitioner has wrongly alleged that the tenanted premises is not used by the respondent. The same was taken on rent to be used as godown for storing marbles and hardware goods. Both the sons of the petitioner are employed in Gurgaon and their wives are working as school teachers. The petitioner has also not stated as to which business his sons intended to carry. The present petition is filed for earning more income in garb of meeting the expenditures of expending family of the petitioner. The petitioner and his family have number of properties in Pitampura village, where they have developed the commercial complexes; one such complex is Jai Complex and the family of petitioner earns hefty income from rent. The petitioner in past also got various premises/shops vacated from the tenants and have been letting out the same at an enhanced rent to increase their rental income. The petitioner after getting the tenanted premises vacated shall re-let it at an enhanced rate. The building in which the tenanted premises is situated is five storey in which three floors are commercial and two are residential. It is denied that the respondent is the owner of entire Dharampal Complex and fact is that he is owner of one half share in that property.

4. In the reply to the said application, petitioner has reiterated the facts as stated in the petition and denied the averments made in the application. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises and the electricity connection in the premises is in his name. It is further stated that respondent has himself stated that litigations between the parties qua one of the shop in the suit property is pending wherein he himself has mentioned petitioner as landlord and owner of the property in question and hence, respondent is now debarred by rule of Estoppel to claim that the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises. It is denied