The court clarified the scope of review powers in eviction cases, emphasizing the necessity for thorough consideration of all asserted needs by the landlady, including familial and medical factors.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.:

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, landlady, who is the exclusive owner of property bearing no. T-73, Ground Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 (`tenanted property'), impugning the judgment dated 20.08.2019 passed by the Court of the Rent Controller (West), Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi (`Trial Judge'), whereby the Petitioner, landlady's, eviction petition has been dismissed holding that the need of the landlady for the tenanted property is doubtful.

2. According to the Petitioner, landlady, she is presently residing at first floor of House No. S-3B, Janta Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, 110027 (`present residence') along with her husband and her then newly married son and his wife.

3. In the eviction proceedings before the Trial Judge, the Petitioner, landlady, had made the following averments:

3.1. She stated that her current residence comprises of one drawing room, one dining room, one bedroom, kitchen, bath and WC and is therefore, insufficient to accommodate the present family of the Petitioner comprising of 04 adults. She stated that the only bedroom is occupied by her son and daughter-in-law. Respondent stated that she herself along with her husband have shifted to the drawing room, which they have converted into a makeshift bedroom. She further, stated that she has a married daughter who lives in Lucknow and there is no accommodation to offer the daughter for overnight stay when she visits her.

3.2. She further stated that her present residence is located at a busy market area due to which there is heavy noise throughout the day and the family has to keep the doors and windows of the house closed at all times to keep the noise at bay. She states that in contrast, the tenanted property is situated in a residential area and the neighborhood is far more suitable for the residence of the landlady and her family.

3.3. She further stated that her present residence is jointly owned by her husband, his brother and three nephews, wherein the husband of the Petitioner has 20% ownership rights. On the other hand, the tenanted property is absolutely and exclusively owned by the landlady herself and therefore, she wants to shift to the tenanted property.

3.4. She stated that the tenanted property is located on the ground floor and since she has developed an orthopedic problem and has been diagnosed with advanced medical compartment osteo-arthritis in her right knee and related ailments, she has been advised by the doctors to modify her lifestyle and not to climb stairs, ramps, sit on the floor, prolonged sitting and standing or any such other activity, which may put further strain on her knees and her legs. In support of her medical condition, she filed prescriptions issued to her by the Out Patient Department (`OPD') of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Hospital.

4. Therefore, the landlady in the aforesaid facts, filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`the Act'), for recovery of the tenanted property for her bona fide residential need.

4.1. The eviction petition was resisted by the Respondent, tenant, who opposed the prayers made by the landlady on the ground that her need was not bona fide and she had other reasonable, alternate and suitable accommodation available to her.

5. The Trial Judge in the impugned judgment has returned