JUDGMENT

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.

By way of the present revision petition filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (‘DRC Act’), the petitioner challenges order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, North-District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi (‘ARC’) in Eviction Petition bearing RC ARC No. 384/2016.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly, the present petition relates to Shop No. 2 situate on the Ground Floor of property bearing No. C-32, Nehru Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi (‘subject premises’), which premises has been in the use and occupation of the petitioner for more than 30 years, with the last paid rent of Rs. 702/- per month.

3. On 14/15.10.2016 the respondent (landlord) filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the DRC Act seeking eviction of the petitioner (tenant) from the subject premises, on the ground that respondent bona-fidé requires the subject premises to start his own business since the respondent’s only source of income has been his rental income.

4. Pursuant thereto, on 16.11.2016, the petitioner filed his application seeking to leave to defend the eviction petition under section 25B(4) and (5) of the DRC Act, which application came to be dismissed; and resultantly, the eviction petition was allowed vidé impugned order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned ARC.

5. The court has heard Dr. Amit George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; as well as Mr. Murari Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent at length.

PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

6. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the present revision petition has been preferred against order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned ARC in the eviction petition, whereby the application seeking leave to defend filed by the petitioner in respect of the subject premises has been dismissed, thereby directing eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises without trial. It is contended that the impugned order is vitiated since it ignores material facts, documentary evidence and settled principles governing the grant of leave to defend under section 25B of the DRC Act.

7. It is urged that the eviction petition was filed under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act in 2016 with the sole intent of securing higher rental income by evicting the petitioner, and not on account of any genuine or bona-fidé requirement. The respondent is alleged to have deliberately suppressed the availability of Shops Nos. 1 and 3 in the same building, which, it is contended, remained vacant during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, thereby creating a false appearance of scarcity to found a false claim of personal necessity. The petitioner emphasises that his tenancy in Shop No. 2 dates back to 1994 under a pagri arrangement, pursuant to which an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- was paid to the respondent’s father and rent of Rs. 360/- per month, then commensurate with the market rate, has been regularly tendered without default, though the respondent subsequently declined to accept rent with the oblique motive to re-let the premises for a higher consideration.

8. It is further submitted that the respondent’s alleged closure and sale of his industrial oxygen gas cylinder business under agreement dated 10.05.2016 for Rs. 1,00,000/- is denied by the petitioner, who asserts that the respondent continues to carry-on the said business and that the plea of closure of that business is a device to manufacture a false ground of ‘need’ which does not exist.

9. The cornerstone of the petitioner’s challenge is that the requirement pleaded by the respondent is not bona-fidé in view of the availability of suitable, alternate accommodation in the hands of the respondent, in the form of Shops Nos. 1 and 3 in the same building. As to Shop No. 1, it is contended that although the respondent initially claimed that the said shop was let-out to one Mr. Vinod Kumar, the petitioner had placed substantial documentary and photographic ma