A landlord has the freedom to choose the most suitable accommodation for their bona fide requirement, and the burden to prove the existence of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation lies with the tenant.

J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner/ landlord, Hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord’ filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act before the learned Additional Rent Controller-2(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Hereinafter referred to as ‘learned ARC seeking eviction of the respondent/ tenant, Hereinafter referred to as ‘tenant from one godown/ shop in property no.1160, Chhatta Madan Gopal, Maliwara, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110 006, Hereinafter referred to as ‘subject premises

2. Succinctly put, it was the case of the landlord before the learned ARC that being the owner/ landlord of the subject premises, he was in bona fide requirement of the subject premises for carrying on his own business as well as for setting up a business of his unemployed and dependent son, Mr. Neetesh Kedar.

3. Upon service of summons, the tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend inter alia contending that the landlord was not the owner of the subject premises and that he himself had taken the same on rent from Smt. Vidhyawati, the mother of the landlord; that the landlord does not have any bona fide requirement of the subject premises as his son is not dependent upon him and is independently engaged in the business of ‘dalali’ in gold jewellery; that the landlord had sufficient alternative accommodation in his possession in the form of property no.1160, Chhatta Madan Gopal, Maliwara, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110 006, Hereinafter referred to as ‘property no. 1160, wherein the subject premises was situated and the property no.1838, Chhatta Madan Gopal, Matawali Gali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110 006, Hereinafter referred to as ‘property no. 1838, as also that the landlord was in possession of sixteen shops in the property no.1160, out of which six shops were lying vacant; that the landlord possesses one large shop in the same locality wherein the landlord was earlier carrying on his dairy business; and that the landlord was also in possession of one building in Karol Bagh.

4. Though the said application for seeking leave to defend of the tenant was dismissed by the learned ARC, however, the same was set aside by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2012 in RC. Rev. 240/2011.

5. Thereafter, in its written statement, the tenant again reiterated that the landlord had sufficient alternative accommodation in his possession.

6. As per tenant, the requirement projected by the landlord was not bona fide inasmuch as his son was not dependent upon him and was, in fact, earning substantial income of about Rs 1-1.5 lakh per month from rental income and commission-based business, and lastly that in the Legal Notice dated 24.03.2003 issued by the landlord, eviction was sought on the ground of sub-letting, and no plea of bona fide requirement was raised therein.

7. In response thereto, it was primarily the case of the landlord that the written statement was filed and signed by one Mr. Anil Kumar, who had no concern with the subject premises, which was in fact let out to Shri Gopal Dass, as also that the son of the landlord had acquired experience in the jewellery business and intended to start his own wholesale and retail jewellery business for which he bona fidely required the subject premises. Moreover, since the subject premises was situated on the ground floor