The central legal point established is that the landlord's need for premises expansion, when sufficiently proven, shifts the burden to the tenants to rebut the same.

JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J.

1. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been made to order dated 29.11.2018, passed by learned Appellate Authority, whereby an ejectment order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Learned Rent Controller has been set aside, thereby dismissing the ejectment petition filed at the instance of the petitioners/landlords.

2. Briefly stated, an ejectment petition came to be filed against the respondents/tenants at the instance of the petitioners/ landlords regarding the tenanted premises, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, personal necessity, change of nature of property, besides subletting. The prayer in the ejectment petition was opposed at the instance of the respondents/ tenants by way of filing their written statement.

3. The learned Rent Controller vide its judgment dated 27.02.2018 allowed the ejectment petition filed at the instance of the petitioners/landlords while recording that the premises in question was needed by them, besides holding that there was sub-letting and change of user on the part of the respondents/ tenants.

4. Aggrieved of the aforesaid findings, the respondents/ tenants filed first appeal which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 29.11.2018 by the Appellate Authority while holding that the petitioners/ landlords were not able to prove their bonafide necessity as no specific need was established. Besides it, the findings on the grounds of sub-letting as well as change of user were also reversed against the petitioners /landlords.

5. While assailing the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners/ landlords refers to the statement made by one of the landlords who appeared as PW3 and submits that the petitioners have been running their business in the shops situated at the ground floor of the premises in question for over 10 years prior to the filing of the ejectment petition and thus, the property in question was required for the expansion of their business. Learned Senior counsel further submits that no express details were required to be pleaded in the ejectment petition about the extent and manner in which the property was to be used post its vacation.

6. On the other hand, counsel representing respondents/ tenants vehemently opposes the prayer for ejectment while supporting the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority and submits that in the absence of any specific mention about the purpose or need of the premises by the petitioners/ landlords, their bonafide requirement being vague, was rightly declined. Learned counsel also submits that even the findings recorded on the ground of material alteration, sub-letting/ change of user, warrant no interference as there was no evidence led by the petitioners/ landlords that the construction of the alleged washroom was post initiation of tenancy. He further points out that the findings on the plea of sub-letting were against record as the servant qua whom the sub-letting was attributed happened to be an employee of the respondents/ tenants. In support, learned counsel for the respondents/ tenants relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in case of Jagat Ram Vs. Mathra Dass and another 1978 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 351.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find merit in the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners/ landlords. It has come on record in the cross-examination of PW-3 i.e. one of the co-owner/landlord, namely, Ashok Sehgal that the demised premises was purchased by the petitioners/ landlords somewhere in the year 2012 and even 10 years prior thereto they were running their business in the said shops and also that even the first floor of the same building was divided amongst the petitioners/ landlords and was being used by them for their respective business. The aforesaid portion from the statement leads to an irresistible conclusion that the demised premises i.e. 2nd floor was