Sh. Mukesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar, R/o C/240, Vikas Puri, Delhi 110018. Also At: Shop No. 18056, Turkman Gate, Delhi. ...Respondent Date of Institution of the case 02.03.2009 Under Section 14(1)(e), read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act (or in short the "Act" or "DRCA"). E. No. 355/2009 (RC ARC no. 77667/2016) Mohd. Jamal & Ors. vs. Mukesh Kumar Page of 1 of 46 Date of reserving of Judgment 30.04.2024 Date of Judgment 06.05.2024 Decision Petition is allowed. JUDGMENT 1. The present judgment shall decide a petition instituted by the petitioners for eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises on the ground of the bonafide requirement of the petitioners, filed u/s 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act). Petition 2. The petitioners' case is that the petitioners are the owners and landlords of the tenanted premises i.e. shop bearing no. 18051806, Bazar Turkman Gate, Delhi situated at the ground floor, measuring 13'x20' sq. ft., shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. It is further stated that the tenanted premises was purchased by the petitioners jointly from its previous owners namely Sh. Mohd. Zameer and Sh. Mohd. Naeem, both sons of late Sh. Haji Mohd. Idrish vide registered sale deed dated 26.12.2001. It is further stated that the respondent was inducted as a tenant in the said tenanted premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/ per month by the erstwhile owner and there was no written agreement at the time of the tenancy. The tenanted premises is being used by the respondent for commercial purposes till date. E. No. 355/2009 (RC ARC no. 77667/2016) Mohd. Jamal & Ors. vs. Mukesh Kumar Page of 2 of 46 3. That the tenanted premises is required by the petitioners bonafidely for their own use and occupation as the petitioners are married persons and are having their own separate families. That petitioner no.1 is running the business of bakery in the tenanted premises bearing municipal no. 1803, Turkman Gate, Delhi and the said tenanted premises is under the tenancy of Sh. Mohd. Islam, the father of the petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioners are having strained relations with their father and the father of the petitioners is insisting on petitioner no.1 to vacate the said premises for running his own business in the said shop and in view of the nonavailability of alternative commercial accommodation, the petitioner no.1 is facing great difficulties in running his business. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner is also having another tenanted premises bearing no. 1533, Gali Qasim Jan, Delhi from where the father of the petitioner Sh. Mohd. Islam alongwith his other two sons namely Sh. Mohd. Taslim and Sh. Mohd. Ayub are running their business activities. For sometime, petitioner no. 2 also joined the said shop for running of his business, however, after a gap of three months, disputes arose between petitioner no.2, his brothers Sh. Mohd. Taslim, Sh. Mohd. Ayub and his father Sh. Mohd. Islam and hence petitioner no.2 was removed from the said shop. It is further stated that the petitioner no.3 is a physically handicapped person, and his left hand finger is fingerless. It is further stated that both petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 are presently E. No. 355/2009 (RC ARC no. 77667/2016) Mohd. Jamal & Ors. vs. Mukesh Kumar Page of 3 of 46 unemployed and are not having any alternative commercial accommodation anywhere in or outside Delhi. It is further stated