NAJMI WAZIRI, J. - (1.) THIS petition impugns an order dated 24.10.2013 whereby the respondents/landlords ' petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 (the ''Act '') was allowed and the petitioners/tenants have been directed to be evicted from tenanted premises i.e. Shop No.4, X/1464 (Old No.331/A -21), Gali No. IV, Rajgarh Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The respondents/landlords had sought eviction of the aforesaid petitioners/tenants on the ground of bona fide need of the shop. It is the case of the evicition -petitioners that the petitioners ' family comprised of his wife, three daughters of different ages from 14 to 24 years and one son, the eldest daughter was engaged in a business under the name and style of M/s. Krishna Industries at Bawana, the eviction -petitioner No.1 was engaged in the business of oil trading in Jheel Khuranja; he also had a factory at Bawana and another business under the name of M/s Tarun Motors; that the tenanted premises were required for the dual purpose for extending the business and for converting the same into the garage. Besides, the eviction -petitioner 's needs were growing particularly in view of his 14 year old son. The eviction -petitioners had contended that the property was let out to one Sh. Tulsi Ram, the father of present tenants and upon demise of their father the tenancy continued. The eviction -petitioners had claimed ownership of the premises on the basis of a gift deed executed by Smt. Mango Devi wife of Sh. Pyare Lal, the owner/landlady of the premises. The gift deed was executed on 6.4.2002 registered with the sub -Registrar 's office -VIII, Delhi on 12.11.2002 vide registration No.6653 in Block No.I at Serial Nos. from Pages 96 to 102. Smt. Mango Devi was the mother of the petitioner No. 1. The eviction -petitioners claimed that they had no other alternate suitable accommodation to meet their bona fide need hence they had filed the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
(2.) THE tenants were granted leave to defend. Evidence was led by the parties and after appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court found that although the tenants may not have attorned to the relationship of landlord and tenant with the eviction petitioners, they had nonetheless deposited rent till July, 2004 in the Court in the name of Smt. Mango Devi. The Court was of the view that so far as the rent had been deposited even after the rights in the property had been transferred to the present eviction -petitioners by virtue of the aforesaid gift deed and the rental was paid almost two years thereafter in the name of Smt. Mango Devi, therefore the tenants could not claim that there was no landlord - tenant relationship between the parties. The Court found that none of the grounds raised, for resisting the eviction -petitioner were made out, even through the evidence led by the tenants. The tenants were unable to establish whether the eviction -petitioners had other accommodation under their occupation, except the property in question for the purpose of car parking, as had been sought in the eviction petition. Apropos the tenant 's contention that the space adjacent to the shop in question as shown in Ex.PW -1/6 could be used by the petitioners to park their vehicle, the Court found it untenable, since the space was considered insufficient by the eviction petitioners for parking of vehicles. Besides the eviction -petitioners had shown the area as a verandah, and the only open space available to them for ingress and egress into the property in which a staircase too was situated. The Trial Court reasoned that the tenants had not disclosed the measurement of the area/open area in the site plan, whereas the eviction -petitioners had given due measurements. It was admitted by the tenants that the eviction -petitioners owned one Wagon -R car, one Swift Dezire and one two -wheeler and that he was not conscious that the eviction -petitioners owned another car or not. The Trial Court concluded that all the vehicles owned by the eviction -petitioners could not be parked in the said space. In view of the law prohibiting parking of vehicles on a public road, the requirement of the eviction -petitioners to park their vehicles away from the road in a space to be created for parking within his property, the need was considered as bona fide and genuine. The Trial Court then reasoned, on the basis of SarlaAhuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1998 (8) SCC 119, that (i) the Rent Controller should not proceed on the assumption that the landlord 's requirement is not bona -fide and (ii) it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises ''. In the present case, however, the landlord 's case has already been established i.e. that the requirement of the tenanted space was for a garage for parking his vehicle. It is settled law that space required for parking a vehicle is a bona fide need. The learned Single Judge of this Court in VinodKapoor v. KailashSethi 2008 VIII AD Delhi (461) held: ''5. It is well settled that requirements of a garage for car parking and requirement of a guest room for guests are bona fide requirements. The requirements of family members of landlord who are living with him and with whom the landlord is enjoying the life are bona fide requirements of the landlord. '' 2. This Court finds that every contention of the tenant had been duly considered and the findings of the Trial Court are based upon the record i.e. the evidence led by the parties. The reasoning for and conclusion arrived at cannot be faulted. The tenants make out no ground for intervention with the impugned order. The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.;