The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the court to objectively assess the landlord's bona fide requirement of the premises and examine the bonafide claim, emphasizing the need for a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.

M.L. MEHTA, J. :

1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 2.09.2011 of Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and eviction order was passed against him in respect of the tenanted premises.

2. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of one shop with chabutra in front of shop in property No. 38-UB, Jawahar Nagar, Kamla Nagar, Delhi . This premises has two shops in the front portion facing the main road. One shop is in the tenancy of the petitioner, and the second is stated to be occupied by the respondent No. 2 Sanjeev Bajaj. Both the respondents Anil Bajaj and Sanjeev Bajaj are real brothers. The respondent No.1 Anil Bajaj is stated to be running a kiryana shop in premises No. 25-UB, Jawahar Nagar. The eviction of the petitioner is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted shop by the respondent No. 1 Anil Bajaj. The respondents’ case in this regard is that the kiryana shop of the respondent No.1 Anil Bajaj at 25-UB, Jawahar Nagar is in a lane, which is 15 ft. wide, and he does not have sufficient business there, and is facing hardship to maintain his large family from the income of the said shop. According to the respondents, if he (respondent No.1) shifts his kiryana shop in the tenanted premises, which is on the main road, his business will increase.

3. The petitioner filed leave to defend application, raising various issues. He categorically denied the respondents to be requiring the tenanted shop for the kiryana business of the respondent No. 1 Anil Bajaj or they (respondents) are not having any other suitable accommodation. The petitioner has stated the respondents to be having large number of properties, and that they are doing the businesses jointly. It is also stated that they have acquired various properties and have been selling and letting out them at different points of time. The petitioner has given the descriptions of a large number of properties, alleging the same to be owned or possessed by the respondents in their names or in the names of their family members. It is also the case of the petitioner that the tenanted shop is not required by the respondent No. 1 Anil Bajaj for his Kiryana shop, since he is running the kiryana shop in a bigger shop measuring 15’X40’ feet at 25-UB, Jawahar Nagar, and where, the amount of business is much more than what it was, when the kiryana shop was there in both the shops in the suit premises. It is also alleged that in the adjoining shop being 37-UB, the respondents are having franchisee business of M/s. Numero Uno, which is in the partnership of the respondents and their mother Malika Bajaj. An additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner, stating that during the pendency of the petition, the ground floor of premise 25-UB, Kamla Nagar was also purchased by the respondent No. 2 Sanjeev along with other partners and after redevelopment, four shops have been carved out on the ground floor, and, have been let out.

4. The respondents, in their reply to leave to defend application, denied all the assertions made by the petitioner and reiterated the tenanted premises to be required by the respondent No. 1 Anil Bajaj for his kiryana shop.

5. The learned ARC dismissed the leave to defend application, observing that all the other properties as mentioned by the petitioner to be owned or possessed by the respondents, were either that of the respondent No. 2 Sanjeev Bajaj or his wife, owned individually by them or in association with others, and that, the respondent No. 1 Anil Bajaj had no concern with any of those properties except, 25-UB where he is running his kiryana business. With regard to the plea of the requirement of the tenanted shop by the respondent No. 1 Anil Bajaj, the ARC observed that since the respondents had offered to exchange this shop at 25-UB with the tenanted shop to the petitioner, to w