SAPNA Vs. MUKESH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rent control revision petition is filed under Sec. 25 B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugning the judgment of the Rent Controller (RC) dated 2.5.2012 by which the Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the suit premises being the front side portion of the shop no.3, Gandhi Market, Mirdard Road (back side Ranjit Hotel), New Delhi. The back side portion of the shop is already with the respondent-landlord who carries on the business of a chemist store from the same.

(2.) As per the bonafide necessity eviction petition, respondent/landlord claimed that he is a bachelor and he had five brothers and all the brothers of the respondent are unmarried. The respondent pleaded that he had a shop which forms the back portion of the shop which is on tenancy with the petitioner and he needs the tenanted shop so that he can open his office in the tenanted portion and also rest in the same during the day time because the respondent and his brothers carry on the business of a chemist shop which has long hours running into about 12 hours or so in a day and therefore rest during the day time is required because they cannot go to their residential premises which is a few kilometres away from the tenanted shop. As already stated above, in the adjacent shop at the back of the tenanted shop, the respondent/landlord is carrying on business of a chemist shop.

(3.) In a bonafide necessity eviction petition under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act, three aspects are required to be seen by the court for decreeing the eviction petition. Firstly, there must be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the landlord must be the owner of the tenanted premises. Second aspect which is to be seen is whether the landlord requires the tenanted premises for his bonafide need and/or the need of his family members. Thirdly, it has to be seen whether the landlord has an alternative suitable accommodation.