V.B.Gupta, J. Present revision petition under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as 'Act') has been filed against order dated 8th February, 2010, passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as 'Controller') Delhi. Vide impugned order, application of petitioner/tenant for leave to defend was dismissed and eviction order was passed in favour of respondent/landlord and against petitioner.

2. Respondent filed eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of Act on the ground that he is the owner and landlord of premises bearing no. WZ-152, Mukherjeet Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. Petitioner is his tenant in respect of shop in above said property as shown in red colour in the site plan, at monthly rent of Rs.715/- exclusive of other charges. Respondent is a trained and qualified technician who has obtained three years T.V., V.C.R. servicing course certificate and is capable of repairing and servicing of mobile phones by virtue of his twenty years experience in this filed. He and his family is facing financial hardship due to his low income whereas, persons who are less qualified and competent than him are generating very good income because they are running their own workshops. Respondent is unable to open his own workshop due to non availability of space. He does not have any other space, except the shop in question to start his own business. Since, respondent is desirous of starting workshop for repair of TV, music systems, remote control and mobile phones etc., thus, the shop in question is required for his bonafide need so that he can earn good income in order to meet out the requirement of his family.

3. In affidavit filed along with leave to contest by the petitioner, it is stated that respondent has not come with clean hands and is seeking relief for bonafide requirement on false ground.

4. It is also stated that respondent is having his own shop bearing no. 111, at Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, where he is doing business of mobile phone, sale, repair etc. Respondent is also having own mobile repairing institute in the name and style “ V.H.B. Mobile Tech Institute & Repairing Center.”

5. It is further stated that, in the premises there is more space for work, if respondent needs to do work in the premises which space has been shown open in the site plan.

6. In reply to application for leave to contest, it is stated that respondent does not own shop No. 111, Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Rather he has taken the said shop on lease from its owner Smt. Neelu Arora and running the business in partnership with other partner Shri Harish Kumar, under the name and style of M/s V. H. B. Electronics and is running the mobile repair shop from the said shop only. It is pertinent to mention here that, besides respondent and his partner, 2-3 people are also working in the said shop.

7. It is contended by learned counsel that respondent is having a shop at Karol Bagh on lease and also institution on the second floor, which fact he did not disclose in the eviction petition. Only on this sole ground, petitioner is entitled to have leave to defend and contest the eviction petition, which fact has been admitted by respondent in his reply filed to leave to defend application.

8. Other contention is that, respondent has stated he is the owner/ landlord of the premises and is employed and is getting salary, but he has not stated as to how much salary he is getting. Thereafter, respondent has come up with the plea that he has a tenanted shop. Thus, respondent has concealed this fact that, he has an institution of mobile at the second floor of the same premises.

9. It is also contended that respondent has covered verandah which can easily be used for the purpose for which he is seeking eviction.

10. In support, learned counsel for petitioner cited Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal 2001 (5) SCC 705, in which it has been laid down that; “A landlord having no alternative accomm