Eviction petitions under the Delhi Rent Control Act can be maintainable even for partial tenancies, provided the landlord establishes genuine need, which courts prioritize over tenant claims of alternative accommodations.

JUDGMENT

1. The respondent/ landlord, Hereinafter referred to as “landlord filed an Eviction Petition being E.P. No.78636/2016 under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25 (B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act, against the petitioner/ tenant, Hereinafter referred to as “tenant before the learned Additional Rent Controller-01, Central District, Tis Harari Courts, Delhi, Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC seeking eviction from property bearing no.4980/40, ground floor, front portion, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110 002.5

2. Succinctly put, it was the case of the landlord therein that the subject 5 Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises premises earlier belonged to his late grandfather, Sh. Mangal Sen, however, subsequent to his death, by virtue of a Will dated 14.05.1990 (Will), the same came into the share of his late father, Sh. Ramesh Goyal. Thereafter, based on the said Will, in a Suit for declaration bearing no.307/1998 entitled ‘Harish Goel vs. Rajeshwar Goel & Anr’. vide order/ judgment dated 08.12.1999 (judgment), the interests/ rights qua the subject premises which came to the share of his father was affirmed. Subsequent to the demise of his father Sh. Ramesh Goyal, to demarcate the respective shares of his legal heirs, namely Sh. Neeraj Goel, Smt. Manju Goel and the landlord, they entered into a Memorandum of Settlement dated 16.07.2012 (MoS), whereafter a Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.12.2014 (MoU) was also executed inter se the landlord and his uncle Sh. Harish Goel. Based thereon, he became the owner/ landlord of a portion of the subject premises, i.e., 75% of the tenancy.

3. As per landlord, the tenant was initially inducted in the subject premises by his late grandfather Sh. Mangal Sen, and after his demise, he was paying the rent to his uncle Sh. Harish Goel and Smt. Manju Goel. As such, since there was severance of estate and a huge portion of the tenancy fell to his share, he issued a letter dated 08.12.2014 (letter) to the tenant requesting him to attorn the tenancy in his favour, however, despite due receipt, the tenant did not attorn the landlord. Additionally, till recently, the landlord was assisting his mother in her business of electronics with his brother Sh. Neeraj Goel, however, owing to disputes between them, they could no longer continue working together. Further, as he had gained experience and intended to start his own business, there was a bona fide requirement for the subject premises as the same was in the locality where there were various other shops selling electronic goods, and as he had no suitable alternative accommodation(s) available with him.

4. After service, in its application under Section(s) 25B(4) and 25B(5) of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend, the tenant denied the unregistered MoS and MoU and the letter, as also the landlord tenant relationship as it was tendering the rent to Sh. Harish Goel and Smt. Manju Goel. Also, the Site Plan filed by the landlord was incorrect and bereft of material particulars of all the accommodations in the entire property where the subject premises was situated. Further, the Eviction Petition was not maintainable as the landlord could not claim ownership and eviction qua the three separate tenanted shops, and since there was no partition by metes and bounds in terms of settled law, partial eviction was not permissible under the DRC Act. Also, as per tenant, since the landlord became the owner of the subject premises by virtue of the MoU, the Eviction Petition was not maintainable in view of Section 14 (6) o