JUDGEMENT

SACHIN DATTA, J.

1. The present revision petition, under Section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, referred to as the „DRC Act‟), assails the judgment dated 25.01.2022, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „ARC‟) in Eviction Petition No. RC ARC No. 302/2018 titled as Parveen Kumar Jain Vs. Anita Jain, whereby the learned ARC dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner and allowed the Eviction Petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act.

2. The Eviction Petition which culminated in the impugned judgment was filed seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant in respect of the tenanted premises being, one shop at ground floor in House No. 1754-E, Gali No. 5, Page 2 of 15 near Sabzi Mandi, Kailash Nagar, Delhi – 110031 (hereinafter, referred to as the „tenanted premises‟). It was averred in the Eviction Petition that the building in question where the tenanted premises are situated, is a residential-cum-commercial property with two shops on the ground floor (commercial in nature) and first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor (residential in nature). A site plan depicting the same was filed along with the Eviction Petition. It was asserted that the first floor to the fourth floor of the building are residential premises, where the family members of the respondent reside, except one room on the first floor, which is on rent. It was further averred that the entire commercial area in the building comprise of two shops on the ground floor, one of which was under the tenancy of the petitioner herein (the tenanted premises) and the other is in the tenancy of some other tenant (hereinafter, referred to as the „the adjacent shop‟). It was pleaded in the eviction petition that the respondent/ landlord has a bonafide requirement in respect of the tenanted premises, since the son of the respondent wants to start his business of wholesale stationery from the said shop. It was further stated that the dimensions/area of the tenanted premises is 8’4” x 23’3”, and that the same was larger in size than the adjacent shop, which made it conducive for the requirement of the respondent. It was further stated that the adjacent shop on the ground floor was smaller in dimension as compared to the tenanted premises, and also had a staircase going through it, which made it unsuitable for the respondent. It is also averred in the Eviction Petition as under:-

“4. That the wife of the petitioner has a small stationary shop at property bearing no. IX/218/5, Gali. No. 9, Kailash Nagar, Delhi which she operates on her own. The petitioner himself is operating from the small, tenanted shop at property bearing no. IX12202, Gali No.9 Kailash Nagar, Delhi along with her daughter Priya Jain and also does some gifts and toys business. The landlord of the shop from where the petitioner operates his business has instructed the petitioner to vacate the said shop.”

Page 3 of 15

3. In the leave to defend application, filed by the petitioner herein, under Section 25(B)(4) of the DRC Act, it was averred that the petitioner took the tenanted premises on rent from the erstwhile owner, namely, Deepak Jain, in the year 1989. It was asserted that there was an understanding between the petitioner and the said Deepak Jain that the petitioner would not be evicted from the tenanted premises. It was also asserted that the adjacent shop on the ground floor was bigger in size as compared to the tenanted premises. It was also asserted that the son of the respondent, for whose requirement the Eviction Petition had been filed, was in fact running a shop in property bearing No. IX/2202, Gali No. 9, Kailash Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „shop no. 2202‟). It was also asserted