OM PRAKASH Vs. DEVKI NANDAN BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/ landlord "landlord" filed an Eviction petition being RC/ ARC 60 of 2019 against the respondent/ tenant "tenant" qua shop no.3 situated in plot No.166, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110 018 "subject premises" under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 "subject premises", before the learned Additional Rent Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi "learned ARC".

(2.) Succinctly put, the landlord, father of a married daughter and two unmarried daughters, in his Eviction Petition sought eviction of the tenant from the subject premises from a property comprising of six shop(s), of which shop nos.4 and 5 were lying vacant and shop nos.1, 2 and 6 were occupied by third parties. As per landlord, he had kept shop nos.4 and 5 aside for his two unmarried daughters, who were to start their respective professions/ businesses therefrom. There was a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by him, as he was a retired senior citizen who intended to commence a strain-less business of grocery/ confectionery outlet from there as it was the largest shop, and as he had no other suitable alternative accommodation available with him. He also professed that the subject premises would be inherited by his only married daughter after his death.

(3.) Upon being served, the tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend under Sec. 25B (4) and (5) of the DRC Act, primarily contending that the landlord did not disclose the vocation and qualifications of his two unmarried daughters, who would carry out a business from shop nos. 4 and 5, as also that since the landlord had suitable alternative accommodations nearby the subject premises as also other properties at Indira Park, Near Jeewan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, there was no bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord.