Landlords seeking eviction under bona fide requirement must establish genuine need, where tenant's mere claim of additional accommodation does not suffice to deny eviction.

1. The respondent/ landlord1 filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 2 before the learned ARC, Pilot Court (Central), Delhi,3 seeking eviction of the petitioner/ tenant4 from shop bearing private no.2A situated on the ground floor of property bearing municipal no. 682, Katra Hira Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110 0065.

2. In a nutshell, as per landlord, initially Shop no. 682/1 was under the tenancy of one M/s. Jawahar Singh Man Singh, and Shop no. 682/2 was under the tenancy of M/s. Harbans Lal Chander Prakash. Thereafter, the latter shop was subsequently divided by a wooden partition in two portions. Resultantly, the front portion bearing pvt. no. 2B, came under the occupation of M/s. Harbans Lal Sadhna, while the rear portion bearing pvt. no. 2A came under the occupation of Mr. Chander Prakash Chawla i.e., the adoptive father of the tenant herein. Later on, the landlord became the owner of all the aforesaid shops including the rear shop bearing pvt. no. 2A by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 20.03.1985.

3. Succinctly put, as per landlord, since his existing business of pure cotton fabric and mink blanket was diminishing, he intended to switch to business of sarees, lehengas, gowns, dress material, readymade suits, and other allied products, for which, he had a bona fide requirement of the subject premises in addition to the two shops and adjoining chabutra already in his possession. The landlord also declared that apart from the subject premises, he was in possession of three other properties, which were either in dilapidated condition, or occupied for residential use, or were under the tenancy of another tenant. As such, the landlord did not have any other suitable alternative accommodation for his requirement.

4. Upon service of summons, the tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend under Sections 25B (4) and (5) of the DRC Act. Primarily it was the case of the tenant that since the landlord had multiple other commercial accommodations in his possession, he had no bona fide requirement for the subject premises.

5. The learned ARC, after considering the material on record and hearing the parties, vide order dated 12.04.20176 dismissed the application for leave to defend of the tenant observing that the tenant failed to raise any triable issue therein. As such, the eviction petition of the landlord stood allowed.

6. Hence the present revision petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the learned ARC.

7. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the tenant, at the outset relying upon Chander Prakesh vs. Maneel Bansiwal7 submitted that there is no bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord as [i] his contention of the existing business having reached a saturation point and become unprofitable is without merit and with no substantiation; and [ii] for starting a new business though he always had two vacant adjoining shops already in his possession, but instead he lets them out to seasonal vendors on a revenue-sharing basis; and [iii] the subject premises is situated in a predominantly wholesale cloth market where business is generally conducted telephonically and retail consumer presence is minimal and running a saree business there was implausible.

8. Then relying upon Rampat vs. Ganaga Devi8, Charan Dass Duggal vs. Brahma Nand9, Prahlad Rai Mittal vs. Rita Devi10, Khem Chand & Ors. vs. Arjun Jain & Ors.11, the learned counsel submitted that the landlord has sufficient alternative accommodation in his possession.

9. Further, relying upon Santosh Devi Soni vs. Chand Kiran12, Kishor