A landlord's bona fide need for premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act can be established regardless of age or financial independence of family members, as familial ties justify eviction claims.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner/ landlord, Hereinafter ‘landlord filed an Eviction Petition being E. No.77513/2016 entitled ‘Raghubir Saran vs. Jai Bhagwan & Anr.’ under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25 (B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act , 1958, Hereinafter ‘DRC Act against the respondents/ tenants, Hereinafter ‘tenants seeking eviction of Shop No.502, Main Bazar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007, Hereinafter ‘subject premises, before the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Hereinafter ‘learned RC

2. Briefly put, as per landlord therein his wife, Smt. Laxmi Devi, became the owner of the subject premises by virtue of the registered Sale Deed dated 24.02.1969, whereafter she executed a Will dated 08.03.1989, prior to her demise on 23.08.1989, bequeathing the property wherein the subject premises was situated in favour of the landlord. Initially Sh. Mool Chand and Sh. Rameshwar Das were inducted as joint tenants in the subject premises and after their demise, the tenancy devolved upon the present tenants, who thereafter attorned the landlord as such. The landlord had a bona fide requirement for the subject premises for himself as well as for his two grandsons namely Sh. Vijay Kumar and Sh. Gaurav, for the purpose of establishing and carrying on their business.

3. The landlord’s father was earlier carrying on his business from a tenanted premises bearing Shop No.362-A, Main Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, Hereinafter ‘property No.362-A and after his death on 06.03.2005, the landlord himself along with his son namely Sh. Pawan Kumar was operating therefrom. Thereafter, the landlord handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the said tenanted premises in February, 2008 to the owner thereof. After vacating the said tenanted premises, his son expired on 27.05.2008, which left his grandsons dependent upon him. The landlord had no other place of business/ suitable alternative accommodation available for fulfilling the intended bona fide requirement.

4. Upon being served, the tenants filed an application under Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend, which was though dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2011, but overturned by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2012 in a challenge thereto in R.C.Rev. 51/2012.

5. In their joint written statements, it was the case of the tenants that the landlord was merely satisfying his greed as there was no bona fide requirement and at best a mere desire, and that property No.362-A was vacated by the landlord only after receiving a pagri amount of about Rs.20 lakhs from the landlord therein. This was because only his late father and his grandson were running the business of ‘atta chakki’ therefrom, and after expiry of his father since his son was medically suffering, and the landlord himself never participated therein at any time whatsoever. Moreover, the landlord, about 75 years of age, was residing separately from his son Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goel and his grandsons at H.No.503, Main Bazar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, and was earning substantial rental income, and had no intention to start any business. His relationship were strained with his grandsons and daughters-in-law, as he had initiated proceedings against his grandsons and their mother Smt. Brij Bala, only to withdraw it later to succeed in the Eviction Petition filed qua the present subject premises.