JUDGMENT

: JASMEET SINGH, J

1. The petitioners and respondent are referred as landlords and tenant respectively in the present judgment.

2. Landlords are aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (in short “learned ARC”) in Eviction Petition No. 308/2016 titled as “Smt. Savitri Rani Bhasin through LR’s vs. Dalip Kumar Ahuja” wherein the eviction petition filed by the landlords under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short “DRC Act”) against their tenant was dismissed.

Digitally Signed RC.REV. 63/2017 Page 1 of 24

3. The primary reason for dismissing the eviction petition by the learned ARC was that the landlords were unable to prove their bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

FACTS/PLEADINGS

4. Smt. Savitri Rani Bhasin is the owner of the entire property bearing no.

C-152, Rishi Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi and the tenant was inducted in one shop situated on the ground floor of property bearing No. C-152, Rishi Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi – 34 (in short “tenanted premises”)

in the year 1980.

5. The tenanted premises were let out for commercial purpose and it is being used for commercial purpose. The tenant is running a business under the name of M/s Ahuja Decorators. The rate of rent of the tenanted premises at the time of filing the eviction petition was Rs.

360/- per month excluding other charges.

6. Smt. Bhasin had filed an eviction petition against their tenant under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act on the ground of bonafide requirement.

7. It was stated in the eviction petition that Smt. Savitri Bhasin is living at the first floor of the premises bearing no. C-152, Rishi Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi – 34 with her family members in a joint family. Family of Smt. Bhasin consists of her husband namely Sh. Tilak Raj Bhasin, her son Sh. Anil Bhasin, her daughter in law Smt. Kavita Bhasin, Sh. Yatin and Ms. Ananya being the grand children of the Smt. Bhasin.

8. Smt. Bhasin contends that the tenanted premises is required for her grandson namely Yatin Bhasin, who is pursing B.Tech from Maharaja Digitally Signed RC.REV. 63/2017 Page 2 of 24 Agrasen University as he wants to start his own business and is dependent on the landlords and the landlords have no other alternative accommodation.

9. During the pendency of the proceedings, Smt. Bhasin had expired and her LRs (Tilak Raj Bhasin “husband” and Anil Bhasin “son”) were substituted in the eviction petition.

10. As regards the accommodation is concerned, it is stated that there is one shop (yellow in site plan) which is run by Anil Bhasin who is running a business of electrical goods from the said shop. The other portion (shown in blue) is in occupation of another tenant namely Sh. Vijay Bahadur Saxena along with his family members for the residential purpose and the portion (shown in orange color) is being used by the landlords for the purpose of garage parking of vehicles for the last more than 21 years.

11. After receiving summons, tenant filed leave to defend application, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2013. The said order was challenged before this Hon‟ble Court and tenant was granted leave to defend vide order dated 27.11.2014.

12. Subsequently, written statement was filed by the tenant before the learned ARC contesting that there are several shops lying vacant in the ground floor of the property which are available at the disposal of the landlords. In support of this, tenant filed a site plan showing that there are six other shops lying vacant which are in possession of the landlords and those shops are commercially viable.

13. Tenant further submitted that landlords have no bona fide requirement as they want to let out the same to some big company for showroom Digitally Signed RC.REV. 63/2017 Page 3 of 24 purpose.

14. On bonafide requirement, tenant vehemently opposes the ground taken by the landlords, as the need of the landlords is not in present but rather in the