The landlord has the prerogative to utilize the property for his bonafide requirement, and the tenant must disclose a prima facie case to merit leave to defend.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. The present rent revision petition has been filed under section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred as “ACT”) assailing the judgment/order dated 10.12.2010 passed by Ld. Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in eviction petition bearing no.E-118/09, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent being the owner of a shop measuring 7?x9? in property bearing no. F-9, Sudershan Park, Tyagi Market, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as „tenanted premises?) filed an eviction petition dated 4.03.2009 on the ground of his bonafide requirement. Respondent stated that his family consists of a married daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons. It was stated by the respondent that his daughter with her family lives 3-4 days with him. It was stated in the eviction petition that accommodation available with the respondent is one drawing cum dining, one bed room, bathroom, kitchen, one store at the ground floor and one room with attached bath and another room at the first floor of the property.

3. It was stated by the respondent that he is a practicing lawyer at all the Courts, and prepares his cases / briefs at his residence as he does not have chamber in any Court and he has no office, library and consultation room at his residence. Respondent stated that he is a religious man and performs pooja in his bedroom and does not have a separate pooja room at his residence. It was further stated that he also needs a separate guestroom and garage. Hence, the property is stated to be required for meeting his bonafide residential and professional needs and for residence of his family members as he does not have any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

4. Upon receiving summons, the application for leave to contest was filed by the petitioner/tenant on the ground that the requirement projected by the respondent was not bonafide as respondent has numerous properties, both commercial and residential in Delhi. It was averred by the petitioner that he has only one small business and has no other source of income, except the business carried out from the tenanted premises. It was averred that petitioner was having fear psychosis of ejectment as respondent deliberately refused to accept the rent from last eight years. It was alleged that respondent has a chamber in Tis Hazari Courts and getting benefit of being an advocate as the petitioner is illiterate, earning his livelihood from tenanted premises. It was further averred that respondent has recently raised the construction for additional accommodation. It was contented by the petitioner that the daughter of respondent after her marriage has settled in Switzerland and the wife of the respondent has also expired. On all these grounds the petitioner stated having established triable issues and thus, entitled to grant of leave to defend.

5. The respondent filed reply to leave to defend application stating that he has no other property in Delhi as well as outside Delhi except the present suit property. It was contented by the respondent that petitioner is a wealthy businessman, who runs a factory and boutique. It was averred that petitioner also has his residence bearing no. F-34, Sudershan Park, Near Tyagi Market, Delhi near the tenanted premises, surrounded by commercial shops. It was stated that respondent was sharing chamber of Sh. Kuldeep Sherawat , advocate as his contact place. Thereafter, petitioner filed rejoinder denying almost all the averments of the respondent, and prayed for leave to contest.

6. The order of granting eviction decree to the respondent has been challenged in the present proceedings by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that Ld. ARC has committed grave illegality by not considering the material on record as the respondent himself has stated in eviction petition that expect the shop in question, the entire property is i