Landlords can seek tenant eviction based on bona fide need, despite owning other properties nearby, provided alternatives do not meet their specific business requirements.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner/ landlord, Hereinafter ‘landlord filed an eviction petition being RC ARC 5509/2016 entitled ‘Anil Kumar Jain vs. Subhash Chand Chawla’ under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25 (B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , Hereinafter ‘DRC Act against the respondent/ tenant, Hereinafter ‘tenant seeking eviction of Shop being No.N- 18, Munshi Lal Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110 001, Hereinafter ‘subject premises, before the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, Hereinafter ‘learned RC

2. Briefly put, it was the case of the landlord before the learned RC that the subject premises being the most suitable was bona fidely required by him for himself and his family members dependent upon him for commercial purposes of carrying on a business as neither him nor they had any reasonably suitable alternative commercial accommodation in the Connaught Place area. Further, it was stated that the properties belonging to him in Munshi Lal Building, Connaught Place wherein the subject premises was situated was long in occupation of various tenants, and no portion thereof was in his self-occupation. Though the landlord was using a portion bearing no.N-96 on the second floor of the said building for office purposes and it formed a part of the tenanted premises of M/s. Panache Food & Beverages, it was not suitable for the intended commercial purpose. Also, his sons were owners of other properties as co-owners along with Mr. Sachin Jain, who was not on cordial terms with them and was not co- operating with him and/ or his sons. Therefore, such properties could not have been easily got vacated due to opposition by the said Mr. Sachin Jain.

3. Since application under Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend of the tenant was allowed vide order dated 04.06.2011, the tenant filed his written statement and the parties thereafter led their respective evidence(s). It was primarily the case of the tenant therein that the landlord had not come to the Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts and his need was not bona fide as he had ample suitable alternative accommodations available at his disposal, much of which was lying vacant or had been commercially exploited. As per tenant, the landlord had not disclosed that he, his two sons namely Sh. Abhishek Jain and Sh. Abhinav Jain as also Sh. Sachin Jain entered into a duly registered Agreement to Sell regarding a substantial area of the very same Munshi Lal Building wherein the subject premises was situated in favour of M/s. Central Court Hotel whereby a large area comprising of shop nos.N- 63, N-64 and N-64B, first floor and shop nos.N-96, N-97 and N-98, second floor, Munshi Lal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi was surrendered by M/s Central Court Hotel in favour of the landlord. Not only that shop nos.N-64 and N-64B were also let out by them to M/s. Narula Corners House Pvt. Ltd. vide a registered Lease Deed dated 03.11.2006 for a hefty monthly rent. Barring this, shop nos.N-63, N-96, N-97 and N-98 in the very same Munshi Lal Building were in possession of the landlord and his sons, wherein though the landlord had a small office on the second floor