1. Present petition under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as Act) has been filed on behalf of petitioners for quashing of order dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (for short as „Controller?) vide which petitioners? application seeking leave to contest the eviction petition was dismissed and eviction order has been passed u/s 14 (1) (e) of the Act, in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners.

2. Brief facts as per eviction petition are that respondent (petitioner in the trial court) is the owner/landlord of property known as “Kundan Mansion” bearing no. 1769 to 1772 and 1783 to 1785 Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.

3. Petitioner no.1 (respondent no.1 in the trial court) a partnership firm, is a tenant in the portion consisting of one hall, two rooms, two verandahs, latrine and open court yard, as shown in red in the site plan annexed with the eviction petition. The premises in question were let out for office-cum-showroom and godown purposes at a monthly rent of Rs.980/-.

4. It is stated that premises are required bonafide by the respondent for himself for setting up his professional office and he has no other suitable accommodation for this purpose. Respondent was enrolled as an Advocate in 1969. He practiced as an Advocate with Shri Vishnu Bhagwan Andley, Advocate, till he joined Delhi Judicial Service in 1973. He was working as Additional District & Sessions Judge, In-charge Karkardooma Court, at the time of his superannuation on February 29, 2008. Thereafter, respondent started his own practice as an Advocate. He now requires the premises to set up his professional office.

5. Thirty six tenants occupy the entire property known as “Kundan Mansions”. Respondent sold some portions of the property during the period 2000 to 2004, as he had no need of the premises at that time. Premises in dispute are situated on the ground floor in a busy market and are most suitable for setting up an office. No other tenant on the ground floor in the property at Bhagirath Palace has sufficient or suitable space where the respondent could set up his professional office.

6. Respondent is residing at 9, Upper Bela Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, which is a purely residential property. Respondent does not have enough space to set up an office nor would he like to set up his professional office at his residence. Respondent has only one drawing room, one dining room, two bed rooms, one pooja room, kitchen, a store under the stair case, two bathrooms, one garage and a servant quarter. A portion of front verandah has been perforce converted into an ad-hoc study. It measures only 8? x 10? and has no separate entrance. As such it is wholly inadequate and unsuitable for use as professional office. The family of the respondent consists of himself and his wife. They have two married daughters who stay in Delhi and often come to stay with the respondent with their family, which includes their husbands and two children each. Respondent is already short of one bedroom. Thus, there is no space in the said property to set up an office.

7. Respondent is also the owner of Flat No.1-E at First Floor, along with parking in the basement in DCM building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. This property has been in the tenancy of M/s Cottage Industries Expositions ever since the respondent purchased it, and at present it fetches a monthly rent of Rs.70,000/-. Respondent cannot forego the substantial income received from the said property. The current lease of the said property is up to February 15, 2010. Even otherwise, the said flat is one of the several flats occupied by M/s Cottage Industries Expositions and flats on both sides of respondent?s flat are in occupation of the said tenant.

8. In affidavit filed along with application for leave to contest, it is stated by the petitioners that the owner of premises is „Dinesh Dayal HUF?, which is by itself a legal entity. Such an „enti