Eviction proceedings must consider the bona fide need of the landlord, with any subsequent events being relevant only if they significantly overshadow the original claim.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J. (Oral)

1. The order dated 16th July 2022, under challenge in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been passed by the learned Rent Controller ("the learned RC") in RC ARC 224/2019 (Ajay Shukla v. Ram Swaroop Radhey Shyam).

2. The petitioner was the respondent in the said eviction petition.

3. The impugned order rejects two applications by the petitioner, the first for placing on record certain events which allegedly took place subsequent to the filing of the application for leave to defend the eviction petition and the second to take certain additional documents on records.

4. RC ARC 224/2019 was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises of the respondent ("the tenanted premises") under clause (e) of the Proviso to Section 14(1) (hereinafter "Section 14(1)(e)") of the DRC Act, 1958 ("the Act"). The respondent, as the petitioner in the eviction petition, claimed to be the absolute owner of a shop situated on the ground floor of property 236-E, Shukla Market, Anaj Mandi, Shahdara, in which the petitioner was the tenant.

5. The respondent was earlier working in the Punjab National Bank and, consequent to his retirement, expressed his need to start as independent business, for which purpose the respondent claimed that the shop on the ground floor of the tenanted premises, in occupation of the petitioner, were required by him. The eviction petition also set out the details of other shops owned by the respondent or his family members, in the tenanted premises, which, owing to their having been earlier sold out or in occupation by tenants who could not be evicted therefrom, were not available for occupation by the respondent.

6. Consequent to issuance of notice in the eviction petition, the petitioner applied for leave to defend the eviction petition. Arguments on the application for leave to defend were heard by the learned RC on 17th November, 2021, and the application was reserved for orders on 2nd December, 2021.

7. After the application of the petitioner for leave to defend was thus reserved for orders by the learned RC, the petitioner filed two applications, which stand dismissed by the impugned order dated 16th July 2022.

8. The first application was for placing certain subsequent events which, according to the petitioner, were subsequent to filing of the eviction petition, on record. Paras 4 and 5 of the said application may be reproduced thus:

"4. After the hearing of the arguments on the leave to defend application the Petitioner has gotten occupation of the premises on the Ist floor which is a huge Shop measuring approx. 300-350 sq. feet. This shop on the P1 floor was earlier rented to Mr. Shrawan Kumar and the Petitioner has gotten vacant possession from Shri Shrawan Kumar. Shri Shrawan Kumar has also removed his board from the premises that showed "Royal Kitchen Appliances". The photo showing the board of "Royal Kitchen Appliances" in the year 2019 has been placed by the respondent on the records of this cause on 4.6.2019. The new tenant has been inducted after 17.11.2021 and is still to put up his own name board. Photograph Annexure SE-1 shows the board of "Royal Kitchen Appliances" having been removed and Photograph Annexure SE-2 shows the new goods of the new tenant being displaced and sold inside shop at 1st Floor, it is thus evident that huge and prime alternative suitable commercial accommodation has been re-let out by the Petitioner after-getting vacant possession from the earlier tenant and this act of the Petitioner demolishes the projected bonafide need.

5. The Petitioner is also guilty of having renewed the tenancy of Shri Naveen Pal recently last week. The Shop 236- N in possession of Shri Naveen Pal measures around 70-80 sq. feet and is also very suitable alternative commercial accommodation. If the projected bonafide need would have been real, the Petitioner cou