The requirement of a landlord for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act is presumed bona fide unless convincingly disputed; mere allegations of alternative accommodation are insufficient without supporting evidence.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)--The Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, tenant, assailing the eviction order dated 8th June, 2022 passed by the Rent Controller, KKD Courts (Shahdara) Delhi, in respect of shop no. 2, forming part of the property no. 213, Karkardooma Village, Delhi-92 (`tenanted premises'), whereby the Rent Controller has dismissed the Tenant's leave to defend.

Submissions of the petitioner

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the finding of the Rent Controller that the Respondent, landlady, has a bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises is incorrect. He states that the averments of the Respondent is that the tenanted premises are required for earning personal income due to her imminent retirement and that she intends to open tutorial classes to teach children, including poor children and to support her children financially as well. He states that the assertion of the Respondent that she wishes to teach poor children contradicts her assertions that she requires a tenanted premises for running tutorial classes for earning income. He further states that there is no evidence on record that the Respondent is in fact providing financial assistance to her son, Nishant Dagar. He states that the Respondent has not placed on record any document evidencing that her younger son is financially dependent upon her. On the contrary, it is evident from the record that the Respondent's younger son is financially independent.

2.1. He states that the Rent Controller failed to appreciate that the landlady admittedly has in her possession the entire first floor and second floor of the building in which the tenanted premises are located. He further states that tutorial classes can be operated from the first floor and second floor of the tenanted premises. In this regard, he states that it is common knowledge that tutorial classes also operate classes from first floor and second floor and therefore, the landlady has sufficient space on first and second floors for operating tutorial classes. He states that in view of the said availability of the alternate premises, the Rent Controller ought to have rejected the plea of the Respondent that she requires the premises by vacating the tenanted premises in question.

2.2. He states that the Rent Controller failed to appreciate that the plea of the landlady that her retirement shall cause monetary set back has not been proven on record. He states that there is a reasonable presumption that the Respondent would have received gratuity and provident fund on her retirement, however, no disclosure with respect to the said amounts has been made in the eviction petition. He further submits that the Rent Controller failed to appreciate that there are other shops on the ground floor in the same building and the same have been let out by the landlady and she therefore has sufficient income from the said shops.

2.3. He also states that the Rent Controller failed to make an enquiry with respect to other properties owned by the landlady. He states that while the Petitioner was not aware about the details of the other properties, it is the obligation of the Rent Controller to make such an independent enquiry from the Respondent. In support of his contention he places reliance upon the judgments of Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon, 72 (1998) DLT 629, Raj Kumar v. Hari Parshad (Deceased) through LRs, 106 (2003) DLT 496, V.K. Arora v. K.B. Madan, 2000 (85) DLT 24 and Cha