NEM CHAND JAIN Vs. SANJAY KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, brought under proviso to Sec. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner/tenant has assailed the eviction order passed after full dress trial by the Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Delhi under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act. On service of notice, respondents/landlords entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) Briefly stated, circumstances leading to the present petition are as follows.

(3.) During final arguments, the only challenge thrown on behalf of the petitioner/tenant against the impugned eviction order was that the present respondents concealed the complete details of the premises available with them which could be used for business purposes of their children. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant contended that since the respondents/landlords concealed the total area including measurements as well as number of shops in each of their property with details of the tenants, the requirement projected by them has to be discarded as bereft of bona fides. It was argued that the respondents/landlords have falsely declared the available shops as godowns, so their plea to that extent has to be rejected. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant placed reliance on the judgment of a coordinate bench of this court in the case of Khem Chand vs Arjun Jain, 2013 IX AD (Delhi) 89 and contended that the reasonableness and suitability of the alternate accommodation is a question of fact and has to be examined on case to case basis instead of being a thumb rule that landlord is the best judge.