The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of a landlord's bonafide requirement for the premises, including for dependent family members, and the maintainability of a single eviction petition for multiple tenancies if common questions of law and fact exist.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has assailed the eviction order dated 23rd January, 2012, passed by Additional Rent Controller-01, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of two shops situated in the suit property bearing Khasra No. 186/22, Municipal No. 780A, Banke Bihari Mandir Road, Scooter Market, Jheel Khurenja, Delhi-110051 (hereinafter referred to as “the tenanted shops”). The tenanted shops were let out to the petitioner for last many years on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- exclusive of other charges. The tenanted shops came to the share of the respondent out of a notional partition amongst the legal heirs of the demised father of the respondent, who was the original owner of a part of the entire suit property. The respondent and his son were stated to be doing private jobs of selling medicines. Since the respondent and his son wanted to start their own business and their residential accommodation was not sufficient for the same, the respondent required the tenanted shops for himself and his son to start their own business and earn a decent livelihood.

3. The petitioner in the leave to defend application contended that one tenanted shop in the suit property was let out to the petitioner on 4th November, 1962 at the rent of Rs.30/- per month, similarly second shop was let out to the petitioner in the year 1965 at the rent of Rs.26/- per month and the third shop was let out to the petitioner in the year 1990 at the rent of Rs.600/-. The rent was later increased to Rs.1,000/- in the year 2001 and Rs.1,500/- in 2010. Further, the petitioner objected that the respondent had not disclosed the particulars of the immovable properties which were in his possession and also did not disclose the shop from where the nephew of the respondent was carrying on commercial activities, that is one shop in the suit property. It was averred that the respondent and his family members had sufficient accommodation which had been concealed in the eviction petition and the respondent alongwith his family members was running commercial activities from other portion of the suit property. The bonafide requirement of the respondent was denied. It was contended that the petitioner had spent about Rs.2,50,000/-in construction of the tenanted shops and further paid Rs.50,000/- in cash to the respondent’s brother in the year 1994. The fact of partition having taken place was denied and the suit property was contended to be a joint family property.

4. The petitioner also filed an application subsequently contending that the suit for partition in respect of the suit property was pending in another court and that the share of the respondent in the suit property was uncertain and hence the eviction petition was not maintainable.

5. In the reply filed by the respondent, the averments of the petitioner were denied and the contentions of the respondent were reiterated. It was stated that the tenanted shops let out to the petitioner at different stages were converted into one shop, having two shutters from outside, having one no. i.e. 780-A. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, his stand was reiterated.

6. The learned trial Court while dismissing the leave to defend application of the petitioner vide the impugned eviction order observed with regard to the plea of the petitioner about the commercial activity being done by the nephew of the respondent, that the activity of the nephew or the brother of the respondent on any other part of the suit property had no bearing on the need and requirement of the respondent. It was observed that the petitioner had vaguely stated that the respondent and his family members had sufficient accommodation without disclosing any such alternate accommodation neither was any site plan filed by the