In eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the landlady is the best judge of her needs; non-disclosure of unsuitable alternative accommodation or the beneficiary's qualifications does not negate bona fide requirement, and concealment is obliterated once evidence is led.

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. By virtue of the present petition, petitioner (landlady) seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 06.07.2020 (impugned judgment), passed by learned Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi (learned RC), whereby the Eviction Petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) being RC ARC 6036/2016 seeking eviction of the respondent (tenant) from the shop bearing private no.2 of premises bearing no.12/3, measuring 10 x 45 ft. at Yusuf Sarai, Main Market, New Delhi-110 016 (subject premises) was dismissed after a full-fledged trial.

2. Though the erstwhile landlady has raised various grounds in the present revision petition, however, Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the landlady has restricted his arguments to the issue of concealment since the same is one of the prime issues which swayed the learned RC to dismiss the Eviction Petition of the erstwhile landlady, despite the categoric assertions made by the landlady in paragraph 18(c) of the Eviction Petition. The learned counsel further submits that though the case of the tenant before the learned RC, based on the written statement, was pertaining to shop(s) bought by son of the erstwhile landlady Mr. Devender Kumar Jain. The learned counsel submits that there was no concealment as such, since the said Mr. Devender Kumar Jain was, admittedly, the father of Mr. Vaibhav Jain and the subject premises was sought for him and not for his father. More so, whence it was never the case of the erstwhile landlady that the subject premises was required for Mr. Devender Kumar Jain.

3. The learned counsel submits that there was no nexus thereof with the bona fide requirement for which the eviction proceeding was initiated by the erstwhile landlady. Even otherwise, the learned counsel submits that it is not the requirement of an eviction proceedings under the DRC Act to disclose all and every premises of the family members of the erstwhile landlady which were not reasonable, suitable, convenient and/ or similar to the subject premises for which eviction was sought. Similarly, there was neither any requirement for divulging subsequent sale of shop(s) by the son of the erstwhile landlady Mr. Devender Kumar Jain.

4. In support thereof, reliance is placed upon the judgment(s) entitled Ram Narain vs. Asha Rani & Ors.: (1999) 1 SCC 141, Nisar Ahmed vs. Agya Pal Singh in R.C. Rev. No.367/2018, Sunil Kumar Goyal vs. Harbans Singh in R.C. Rev. No.300/2017, Bhairab Chandra Nandan vs. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta : (1988) 1 SCC 383 and S. Harbant Singh Sahni & Anr. vs. Smt. Vinod Sikari: (2012) SCC OnLine Del 2362 and M.L. Prabhakar vs. Rajiv Singhal : (2012) SCC OnLine Del

5. Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel then submits that the finding qua Mr. Vaibhav Jain being gainfully employed on the basis of a hand-written receipt (Ex. RW1/3) as also the visiting card of one M/s. Jyoti Enterprises bearing the names of Mr. Devender Kumar Jain and Mr. Vaibhav Jain (Ex.PW2/R) and the subsequent deposition made by Mr. Devender Kumar Jain (PW-2) during his cross-examination, could not have formed the basis for the learned RC to conclude that there wa