M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 25B-8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the „Act’) seeks assailing the order dated 14.3.2012 of CCJ-cum-ARC, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a shop No.J-5/101-C, Nehru Market, Rajouri Garde, New Delhi under the respondent. The eviction of the petitioner is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted shop by the respondent for running of his business as also for residential requirement for himself and his family members dependent upon him. The case as set up by the respondent/landlord in the eviction petition is that he is engaged in running Snooker Parlor since 2004 on the ground floor of the suit premises, except in the portion in the tenancy of the petitioner. It is averred that his younger son is doing his business in a rented shop at Sadar Bazar, and he being permanent disabled and unable to do his business independently, needs assistance of his younger son in running the said business. The present accommodation for his Snooker Parlor business on the ground floor is also stated to be insufficient to accommodate his customers and visitors. It is averred that his elder son Harminder Singh is working in a private company and he is also interested to start his own business, which, he cannot, due to shortage of accommodation. Besides, his daughters-in-law are also unemployed and they are also interested to help the family to enhance their income by starting some business. It is the respondent’s case that since he alone cannot run the business on the ground floor and requires the services of his sons and other family members, as such, he requires additional accommodation. It is also averred that he is residing on the first floor with his wife, two married sons and their wives and two minor children, and the said accommodation even otherwise, is not sufficient and suitable for their residential requirement. It is averred that he being a disabled person is unable to climb the stairs and intends to live with his wife on the ground floor. It is averred that his wife is also a patient of depression and requires his constant presence or that of any family member, as she also has suicidal tendencies. Besides, it is also averred that he had two married sisters residing in Delhi, who frequently visit and stay with him.

3. The petitioner filed leave to defend application raising various issues. The learned ARC vide the impugned order has dismissed the application and passed eviction order. This order is under challenge in the instant position.

4. Being conscious of the nature and scope of the revisional power of this court under Section 25-B(8), it may be reiterated that when, from the averments as set up in the leave to defend application, as also the reply filed by the landlord thereto, there appears something on record, requiring to see as to whether the Controller passed the order according to law, this court may peruse the records to ascertain whether any illegality has been committed by the Controller in Passing the order under Section 25-B of the Act. There is no dispute to the submissions, which are made by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord that the landlord is the best judge to decide about his requirement and choice of the place, and neither the tenant nor this Court can dictate to him as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. But, at the same time, it is also settled law that mere assertion that landlord requires the premises, occupied by the tenant, for his personal occupation, is not decisive and it is for the Court to determine the truth of the claim and also to see as to

whether the claim is bonafide. Further, in determining as to whether the claim is bonafide or not, the Court is entitled and indeed bound to consider whether it is reasonable. A claim founded on abnormal predi