1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 5.3.2010 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant in respect of an eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short ‘the Act’) and simultaneously passing an eviction order in favour of the respondent/landlord, in respect of one shop bearing private No.1, situated on the ground floor of the property bearing No.J-80, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, stating inter alia that the aforesaid shop was let out to the petitioner/tenant for commercial purposes in the year 1959 at a monthly rent of Rs.30/-, which subsequently stood enhanced to Rs.720/- per month. The respondent/landlord is a senior citizen aged 82 years and has got three sons and one daughter. All the children are stated to be married. His three sons are settled abroad. The respondent/landlord averred that he wanted to carry on his business of stationery and photostat in the shop in question, for maintaining himself and his dependent family members. It is an admitted position that there are three rooms on the front side of the suit premises, out of which one is in occupation of the petitioner/tenant and the second room is in occupation of the other tenant. The respondent/landlord has stated that the third room is being used by him as a garage for parking his car for the past 20 years. He, therefore, claimed that he did not have other suitable accommodation to start his business, except for the tenanted premises under the occupation of the petitioner/tenant, subject matter of the eviction petition.

3. After service was effected on the petitioner/tenant under the Third Schedule, a leave to defend application was filed by him. In the said application, while the petitioner/tenant did not dispute relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, he sought leave to contest the eviction petition on various grounds including the ground that the requirement as set out by the respondent/landlord for getting the tenanted premises vacated, is not bona fide; that the respondent/landlord does not have any other financial obligation, except for looking after himself and his spouse, his three sons being well settled abroad; that the eviction petition is being used as a handle to pressurize the petitioner/tenant to increase the rate of rent; that the respondent/landlord did not specify as to what kind of business he intends to carry on and lastly, it was stated that the respondent/landlord has ample space in his drive way to park his car there, while putting to use the space for the garage, as a shop.

4. In the reply to the application for leave to defend, it was stated by the respondent/landlord that he had retired from government service in the year 1984 and at that time, his pension was fixed at Rs.873/- per month, which after revision is Rs.7,721/- per month. It was averred that the said amount is insufficient to maintain him and his family members and that he does not have any other source of income and hence, the requirement to use the tenanted premises under the occupation of the petitioner/tenant for carrying on his business, is bona fide. It was further stated that the garage could not be converted into a shop and that he wanted to use the garage for parking his car as he could not keep his car outside the house.

5. After hearing the counsels for the parties, the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the leave to defend application of the petitioner/tenant by holding that he had not been able to raise any triable issue which entitled him to contest the eviction petition on merits. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/tenant has filed the present petition.

6. Counsel for t