An admitted tenant-landlord relationship precludes tenants from contesting ownership via unproven oral sale claims. A landlord's genuine requirement for personal or familial commercial use outweighs tenant assertions regarding alternative property availability, as tenants cannot dictate how a property owner utilizes their own premises.

J U D G M E N T

1. Common arguments have been addressed in the above two petitions, which are arising out of a common factual matrix. As such, both the above petitions are being taken up together.

2. The respondent/ landlord, in both the petitions, filed two eviction petitions bearing RC ARC Nos.54/2021 and 53/2021 against the petitioner(s)/ tenant(s) qua the two premises being the middle shop¹Hereinafter ‘first subject premises’ and the corner shop²Hereinafter ‘second subject premises’ respectively, on the Ground Floor of property bearing No.H-25, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110 027 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958³Hereinafter ‘the Act’. Eviction was sought for the first subject premises on the ground that the landlord required the same for his younger son, Mr. Manpreet Singh, to attain financial independence and carry on the business of purchase and sale of old mobile phones and mobile repairs, and for the second premises the requirement was for the landlord himself, then aged about 71 years, to shift his general merchandise business thereto, which was being run from a tenanted shop bearing No.6005, Krishna Market, Gali Matkewali, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi-110 006⁴Hereinafter ‘Sadar Bazaar shop’, since owing to his medical conditions, it was difficult for him to travel from his residence, located in the same building as both the subject premises, to the said shop in Sadar Bazaar. It was also the case of the landlord in both the Eviction Petitions that he did not have any suitable alternative accommodations for his bona fide requirements.

3. Upon being served, the tenant(s) filed their applications seeking leave to defend, admitting the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, however, refuting the bona fide requirement urged by the landlord.

4. As per the tenants of the first subject premises, the younger son of the landlord was carrying on the business of mobile phone repairs along with his elder brother, he was not financially dependent upon the landlord, and as per the tenant of the second subject premises, the landlord was the owner of the Sadar Bazaar shop, as also since he could shift his residence to the same locality. As such, it was the case of the tenant(s) that the Eviction Petitions were filed with mala fide intention with the sole aim of emptying the entire building in which both the subject premises are located for reconstruction purposes, and that the landlord had ample alternative accommodations available with him to fulfil his bona fide requirements.

5. After completion of pleadings and upon hearing the landlord and tenant(s) in both Eviction Petitions, the learned Rent Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi⁵Hereinafter ‘learned RC’ passed the orders both dated 05.01.2022⁶Hereinafter ‘impugned orders’ qua both the subject premises in favour of the landlord, holding that the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the bona fide requirement of the landlord, and the unavailability of any alternative accommodation with the landlord being the essential three ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act stood satisfied, and, moreover, the tenant(s) were unable to raise any triable issue(s) which could lead to allowing of their applications seeking leave to defend.

6. Hence, the tenant(s) have filed the present petitions