The court reinforced that tenants must demonstrate bona fide issues to contest eviction based on landlord's genuine need, while the eviction process remains expedited under the summary provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

ORDER

The petitioner who was a tenant in shop Nos. 6 (VI) and 7 (VII) situate in F-14/19, Model Town- II, Delhi assails orders dated 24 March 2022 passed by the Administrative Civil Judge acting as the Rent Controller in terms of which eviction petitions have come to be allowed and the applications seeking leave to defend rejected. The eviction petitions were instituted by the respondent, owner and landlord, who sought release of the premises on the ground of a "bona fide need".

2. According to the landlord, he was engaged in the business of financing of automobiles through a partnership firm which was a franchisee of ICICI Bank from a property situate in East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. It was asserted that since the business had increased over a period of time, a need was felt for expansion of its business in North and South Delhi. The landlord further asserted that the property of which release was sought was located in a thickly populated area having immense commercial potential. The landlord further disclosed that he was currently conducting business in East Patel Nagar from a basement of a property and therefore the suit property was liable to be released in terms of the provisions made in Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 ["the Act"]. The petitions were resisted by the petitioner here who sought leave to defend and oppose the prayers as made by the landlord.

3. While before the Rent Controller certain issues relating to whether the provisions of section 14(1)(e) of the Act would apply to a commercial property as well as whether the respondents were liable to be recognised as owners of the suit property were raised, before this Court learned counsel has restricted his submissions to the findings as returned by the Rent Controller with respect to "bona fide need" and the denial of the application seeking leave to defend.

4. While controverting the claim of the landlord that the premises was required bona fide and that he had no other alternative accommodation, the petitioner contended that there were various other portions of the suit property which were originally being used for commercial purposes by occupants thereof. It was pointed out that the father of the petitioner was using the upper floors of the suit property for residential purposes and that another property in the vicinity, albeit standing in the name of the father, was also available and, therefore, the need as set up by the landlord was neither genuine nor bona fide.

5. Controverting the aforesaid pleas as taken in support of the prayer for leave being granted, the landlord submitted that on account of marital discord he was forced to sever all ties with his family and to reside separately from his parents since 2009. It was contended that relations with the father, though cordial, would not extend to the petitioner being permitted to use the other parts of the property for commercial purposes. In any case it was pointed out that the shops in question were in his ownership and consequently, it would be inequitable for the landlord being required to establish his business in any other property which may be owned by his father.

6. The Trial Judge, while examining the issue of "bona fide need", has taken specific note of the plea taken by the landlord who had contended that for the purposes of laying in place basic infrastructure and maintaining the standards of its firm in the northern part of the National Capital Territory, he required a minimum space of 300-350 square feet. It also took note of the categorical assertion of the landlord that sin