A tenant's vague assertions of alternative accommodation are insufficient to challenge a landlord's bona fide need for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.09.2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (East), Delhi in RC ARC No.641/16.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:

i. It is stated that the Respondent herein/landlord let out his two shops bearing No.182, Pratap Nagar, Opposite Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091, (hereinafter referred to `the tenanted premises') admeasuring 9.5x19' and 9.5x16' to the husband of the Petitioner herein/tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.550/- and Rs.450/-, respectively, vide agreement cum rent deed dated 28.05.2019.

ii. It is stated that the husband of the Petitioner herein/tenant passed away on 08.05.2010 and till his death he had been in continuous possession of the tenanted premises and was running his business of food items. It is stated that after the death of the husband of the Petitioner herein/tenant, a mutual renewal agreement cum rent deed dated 25.06.2010 at increased rent of Rs.2500/- per month was executed between the Respondent herein/landlord and the Petitioner/tenant.

iii. It is stated that the Power of Attorney of the Respondent/landlord, i.e. his son Ravi Chaudhary, filed an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises for office space for himself. It is alleged in the eviction petition that the Petitioner/tenant is a chronic defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. It was also alleged in the eviction petition that the Petitioner herein/tenant had misrepresented herself to be the owner of the tenanted premises and had also sub-let the same to one Sarvesh Tiwari in December 2012 who is running a furniture shop under the name and style of `Furniture Point' without the permission of the Respondent herein/landlord.

iv. It was stated in the eviction petition that the family of the Respondent herein/landlord consists of himself and his three sons, and out of his three sons, two are settled in their businesses and only his youngest son - Ravi Chaudhary, i.e. his Power of Attorney through whom the eviction petition was filed, is facing problems in setting up his business and for that purpose he needs the tenanted premises.

v. It was stated by Ravi Chaudhary in the eviction petition that he is doing the work of a property dealer in a partnership, but due to the dispute between him and his partner, he has now planned to separate from his partner and wants to set up his own property dealing business, for which he needs the tenanted premises. It was further stated by Ravi Chaudhary in the eviction petition that they only have the tenanted premises and no other alternative shop/space/place is available to set up an office. It was further stated that Ravi Chaudhary wants to establish his own business to earn the livelihood for himself and his family and for that purpose they need the tenanted premises.

vi. An application for leave to defend was filed by the Petitioner herein/tenant. In the application for leave to defend it was contended that by Petitioner herein/tenant that she and her husband are in occupation of the tenanted premises since 1989-90 vide various rent deeds. It was stated that the rent agreement entered into between the Petitioner herein/tenant and the Respondent herein/landlord in the year 2010 was for an unlimited period since there was no period mentioned in the rent agreement as to when the Petitioner/tenant shall be liable to vacate the tenanted premises. It was also stated in the application for leave to defend that the Respondent/landlord is not the true owner of the property and the Respondent/landl