VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. In challenge in this revision petition is the order dated 20.04.2009 passed by Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal, ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in E-380/08 titled as “Sh. Mukesh Kumar Vs. Sh. Rishi Prakash” whereby the learned ARC has granted to the respondent tenant, the leave to defend the eviction petition preferred by the petitioner/landlord under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

2. Undisputedly, the petitioner is the landlord in respect of premises let out to the respondent comprising of one room situated at the second floor of property bearing no.3649, Gali Rura Acharwali, Chawri Bazar, Delhi, 110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner/landlord as annexure „A' with the eviction petition. The respondent was inducted as a tenant in the said premises on 08.12.1980 at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. It was enhanced to Rs. 99/- per month w.e.f. 01.07.2001. The petitioner claims that the same was further enhanced to Rs. 600/- per month by issuing a notice in consonance with the decision of this court in Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran (HUF) Vs. UOI 95 (2002) DLT 508 (DB). However, according to the respondent the rent is Rs.99/- per month as the respondent does not admit the increase of rent to Rs. 600/- per month.

3. The petitioner preferred the eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement by disclosing that he is carrying on his business in hardware, rubber and iron goods, aluminum and brass doors and window fittings, industrial and other trolley wheels, Castor wheels etc. at 3663, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006. He disclosed that he has three sons. His second son Shri Pankaj Gupta is a practicing Advocate. He stated that he requires the tenanted premises for his second son Shri Pankaj Gupta who intends to start/maintain his office as a lawyer. He further stated that the petitioner has no other suitable space to meet the requirement of his son. The petitioner also contended that the tenanted premises is lying locked / unutilized which shows that the same is not required by the respondent.

4. Upon issuance of notice in the prescribed form the respondent, who is himself an advocate, filed his application to seek leave to defend the eviction petition. The respondent contended that the petitioner is not the owner of the property bearing no. 3649, Gali Rura Acharwali, Chawri Bazar, Delhi – 110006 (herein referred to as “property bearing No.3649”). He admitted that he is the tenant in respect of suit premises under the petitioner. The respondent contended that the petitioner had not made a complete disclosure of the accommodation available with him. It was contended that the petitioner is already in possession of more than sufficient and suitable accommodation for his requirement, which is lying vacant. The respondent contended that property bearing no.3649 in which the suit premises is situated is comprised of four floors, out of which the petitioner is already in actual physical possession of entire first floor, third floor and fourth floor. In addition, the petitioner is also in actual physical possession of shop nos. 2 and 11 on the ground floor which are lying vacant. It was averred that the petitioner has recently got possession of shop nos. 2 and 11 on the ground floor and the entire first floor of the said property from the earlier tenants/occupants. The respondent also contended that even according to the plan filed by the petitioner, the first floor consists of as many as 5-6 rooms, one bath room cum latrine (one toilet for common use) and open terrace which has been recently vacated by the earlier tenant M/s. Saraswati Publications. It was also averred that the entire first floor is in possession of the petitioner and is being used by his son Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate as his office. It was further averred that the other two sons of the petitioner namely Sh. Rajiv Gupta and Amit Gupta are carrying on business with the petitioner