JUDGMENT

1. The present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the „DRC Act‟) assails the order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Delhi (the „rent controller‟) in eviction petition e- 78924/16, whereby an eviction order has been passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act in favour of the respondent/landlord and against the petitioners/tenants, in respect of one shop i.e. property bearing no. 201, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi -110006 (the „tenanted premises‟).

2. The eviction petition was filed by late Smt. Savitri Devi (original landlord) on the assertion that the tenanted premises is required for bonafide need of Mr. Sushil Kumar, her son, who was stated to be dependent on her, for starting a business. It was averred in the petition that the family of Smt. Savitri Devi consists of herself, her three sons, namely, Mr. Kulbushan, Mr. Naresh Kumar and Mr. Sushil Kumar and two daughters, namely, Ms. Avinash Lata who predeceased her and Ms. Kapila. Mr. Kulbhushan and Mr. Naresh Kumar were stated to be running their respective businesses in the adjoining shops bearing No. 192 and 200, Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. It was averred that Mr. Sushil Kumar had been unemployed since long and Smt. Savitri Devi had no other alternative accommodation except the tenanted premises for the aforesaid bonafide need of her son.

3. The leave to defend application of the petitioners was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2015 on the issue of alternate accommodation alleged to be available with Smt. Savitri Devi and in the light of contention of the tenant that Mr. Sushil Kumar, was already running a business from premises bearing No.216, Gali Lohran, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi and property bearing No. 160/308. Pursuant to grant of leave to defend, the matter was set down for trial, and evidence was adduced by the parties. During the course of trial, Smt. Savitri Devi died and the respondents herein were impleaded as her legal heirs. An amended eviction petition came to be filed, wherein it was stated that the tenanted premises were required for the bonafide need of Mr. Sushil Kumar, who required the premises for starting his own business, with the assistance of his brother Mr. Naresh Kumar. No written statement to the amended petition was filed on behalf of petitioners. The learned rent controller after evaluating the evidence on record, affirmed the bonafide requirement of Mr. Sushil Kumar and also held that the said Sushil Kumar did not have any reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for running his business, except the tenanted premises.

4. The rent controller considered the objections raised by the petitioners in their written statement, and with regard to the contention that the eviction petition is not maintainable for want of prior permission of the Competent Authority under Section 19 of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance)

Act, 1956, held as under:-

“15. Now, before appreciating the present facts of the case, lets discuss the basic law on the point.

The first & foremost contention of respondent is that the present petition is barred by law, as no permission from Competent Authority (Slum) is taken by the petitioner before filing the same. On this point, reliance is placed by this Court upon judgment delivered in case titled as Shafait Ali Vs. Shiva Mal (Dead) by LRs AIR 1988 SC 214, where in reference was made to judgment delivered in Ravi Dutt Sharma Vs. Rattan Lai Bhargava AIR 1984 SC 967 and it was held that "section 14A, 14 (1)(E), 25A, 253 & 25C of Delhi Rent Control Act are special provisions so faras the landlord and tenant are concerned and further in the view of the non-obstante clause in the Section, these provisions override the existing law, so far as the new procedure is concerned. In that view of that matter, we are of the opinion that the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 would have no application in these cases covered by Section 14A and 14 (1)(E) of the Delhi R