S. L. BHAYANA, J.

The present revision petition under section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as “Act”) has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.05.2009 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as “controller”) Delhi, vide which leave to contest has been granted to the respondent tenant.

2. Undisputedly, the petitioner is the landlord in respect of premises bearing No.2, Satnam Park, Chander Nagar Road, Delhi 110051 admeasuring 190 sq. yards. The respondent is a tenant of the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 825/- p.m. excluding the electricity and other charges for the last about 39 years. The respondent has been running a hair cutting saloon in the tenanted premises. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and his family consists of his ailing wife aged about 66 years, 2 married sons and 3 married daughters. The elder son has one son aged 18 years and 2 daughters aged about 17 and 16 years. The younger son of the petitioner has 2 sons aged about 10 years and 5 years. The younger son is a practicing lawyer and has been occupying two rooms as his office and library on the ground floor. His three married daughters often pay visits to their parental house along with their families. Other relatives of the petitioner reside in the vicinity and they also often pay visits. The petitioner is suffering from heart problem coupled with old age related ailments and his wife is also suffering from high blood pressure, lungs disease and acute arthritis. The petitioner and his wife are not able to climb stairs and have been medically advised to stay at the ground floor.

3. The petitioner has two small kitchens and almost 25 sq. yards of un-constructed open area in the premises. There is one pooja room, one drawing room, one dining room and one store room. A servant is also residing in the house in one room. The respondent is using the tenanted premises for the last about 38 years and now the family of the petitioner needs more space for their own use. The property in question i.e. the shop is required bonafide by the petitioner for himself and family members. The petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 72 years and his ailing wife is aged about 68 years, 2 married sons and 3 married daughters with their minor and major children along with their spouses. Further learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is suffering from heart ailment coupled with old age related diseases and is not able of climbing the stairs and similarly the wife of the petitioner is suffering from acute arthritis and acute incurable Lungs disease therefore, she is also not able to climb the stairs.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that three married daughters of the petitioner along with their kids and husband and relatives of the petitioner visit and reside for couple of days almost every week. Therefore the petitioner?s need is bonafide and at least one guest room is required to accommodate his daughters, their children and other relatives.

6. Further learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the entire family of the petitioner is occupying lesser accommodation than actual requirement of his family. The younger son of the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and has been occupying two rooms as his office and library.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the DRC Act is a complete Code in itself and the present petition is maintainable under section 25-B (8) of the DRC Act which provides with ample revisional powers vested in the High Court to look into the order passed by the Rent Controller whether allowing and disallowing the leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent/tenant as upheld by the High Court in the case R.S.Bakshi & Anr. V/s. H.K.Malhari, 2003(67) DRJ 410 in paras 8, 9, and 13.

8. Furthe