ROXY DRYCLEANERS Vs. SAMEER WASON & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act'), the petitioner /tenant impugns the judgment passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 31.10.2012, by which the Additional Rent Controller has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act by the respondents/landlords with respect to the tenanted premises being shop no. 53(new), Old Rajinder Nagar Market, New Delhi.

(2.) The facts which were pleaded by the respondents/landlords were that the tenanted shop/suit premises were required for the bonafide need of the respondent no.2 herein, and who was the petitioner no.2 before the Additional Rent Controller. The need which was pleaded was that the respondent no.2 does not have any other commercial premises in Delhi and he wants to start his own business in the suit/tenanted property. It was pleaded that the respondent no.1 herein, petitioner no.1 before the Additional Rent Controller and the co-landlord, was already carrying on his business from one other shop in the property in which the tenanted premises were situated, and therefore, the bonafide necessity eviction petition was only with respect to the bonafide need of the respondent no.2 herein to start his business.

(3.) In a bonafide necessity eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, three aspects have to be seen by the court. First is whether the respondents/landlords are the owners/landlords of the suit premises or not. Secondly, whether there exists a bonafide need of the landlord, and thirdly whether the landlord has any other suitable alternative premises so as not to require the suit premises.