The court emphasized the requirement for landlords to substantiate claims of bona fide need for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

1. The petitioners concededly are tenants in premises described as portions/shed room bearing no. A-8/4, A-8/3 respectively in property bearing no. A-8, Sardar Nagar, behind CC Colony, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi. On the eviction petitions (E-18/12 and E-17/12 respectively) instituted by the respondent seeking orders of eviction on the ground under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, upon being served with the special summons under Section 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, these petitioners had moved applications seeking leave to contest. The said applications were rejected by the Rent Controller by similar orders passed on 15.04.2015, such result leading to eviction orders being granted to the respondent, the view taken by the Rent Controller having been assailed by these revision petitions.

2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides at length and having gone through the record, this Court finds that the Rent Controller has fallen into error by declining leave to contest. The issues raised by the petitioners by their respective applications for leave to contest are triable and, thus, the eviction orders could not have been granted without respondent being called upon to prove his case by evidence. This needs elaboration.

3. As per the case set up in the eviction petitions filed by the respondent in respect of property bearing no. A-8, Sardar Nagar, near CC Colony, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, it is a plot of land admeasuring 200 square yards which was originally owned by Shri Santokh Singh, father of the respondent who died on 10.06.2005. It is stated that prior to his death, the said Santokh Singh he had transferred the right, title and interest in the property in favour of his wife (Smt. Gurmej Kaur, mother of the respondent) by executing documents in the nature of general power of attorney, agreement to sell and Will. Smt. Gurmej Kaur died intestate on 28.11.2005. Admittedly, the title to the property was inherited by the respondent and his brother Sarabjeet Singh in equal shares. It is his claim that his brother had relinquished his share in his favour by Relinquishment Deed dated 12.07.2011 and thereafter the property was mutated in his exclusive name by the municipal authority.

4. The site plan submitted with each of these eviction petitions would indicate that the plot of land is divided into four equal parts – rectangular in shape, each covered by a separate tin shed and stated to be in the tenancy of different persons including the two petitioners herein. The tenancies were admittedly created by Smt. Gurmej Kaur, the letting purpose being commercial.

5. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioners have made default in payment of rent, he reserving the right to take out appropriate proceedings on that count. But then, such contentions are inconsequential in the context of the ground of bona fide need under Section 14 (1) (e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

6. It is the case of the respondent that he with his family that includes his wife and a son (aged 24 years on the date eviction petitions were filed) are sharing residential accommodation in a rented premises bearing property no. D-23, Neelamber Apartments, Sainik Vihar, Rani Bagh, Delhi with the family of his brother Sarabjeet Singh. It is his case that the landlord of the said property is compelling him to vacate and hand over the tenanted premises and, thus, the tenanted portions are required bona fide by him. It was pleaded in the eviction petitions that he requires the tenanted premises vacated so that he may construct a house on the plot which is occupied by different tenants, the building to be developed on the plot to be used for residence of self and for members of his family dependent upon him.

7. It needs to be noted that the letting purpose of all the four portions covered by tin sheds which were let out to different tenants including to the two petitioners herein, was concededly commercial. There is nothing yet brought on re