The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of granting leave to defend in an eviction petition, the tenant only needs to raise prima facie triable issues, not conclusive proof, regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement of the premises.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act) is directed against the order dated 11.05.2011 of the Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner in the eviction petition filed against him by the respondent, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent in respect of one shop in property No. 13-UB, Jawahar Nagar, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. His eviction is sought by the respondent/ landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement thereof by him for setting up his business of property broker, alleging not to be having any other reasonably suitable space for this purpose in Delhi. It is averred by the respondent/landlord in the eviction petition that he has been carrying his business of properties from an office of his friend Jatin Madani at 9-A, Eidgaha Road, New Delhi, and that since he has no space for his business, he has been calling his customers at this place or in public places or restaurants.

3. The petitioner/tenant filed leave to defend application denying the respondent/landlord to be having no space for carrying on his business of property broker or that he was carrying the same from the office of his friend at 9-A, Eidgaha Road, New Delhi. He alleged that the respondent had been carrying his business under the name and style of M/s. Pratham Apartments Pvt. Ltd. from C-161, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I and which address is duly mentioned in the record of the Registrar of Companies. It is also alleged that even in the search report of Sanjay Kumar and Associates dated 26.09.2010, the address of the respondents company continues to be at C-161, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, as per the record of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt. of India. It is alleged that the respondent has let out the ground floor of the suit premises to M/s. Planet Fashion since 2008.

4. In the reply to leave to defend application of the petitioner/tenant, the respondent controverted the averments of the petitioner and reiterated that of his eviction petition, and stated that he has vacated the tenanted premises C-161, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I about seven years back and maintained that he has been running his business from the office of his friend Jatin Madani.

5. The learned ARC, vide the impugned order, declined leave to defend to the petitioner, observing that no triable issue was made and consequently, he passed the eviction order. The same is under challenge in the instant petition.

6. In the instant petition, the petitioner has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking production of some additional documents. The said application was duly replied by the respondent.

7. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent and gone through the entire record.

8. 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 eviction petition as also the leave to defend application, and 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 and rightly examined, evaluated and adjudicated upon the projected need of the respondent of the tenanted premises, 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.

9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the order of the learned ARC declining leave to defend, suffers from serious infirmities and illegalities inasmuch he has overlooked that at the stage of consideration of leave to defend, it was only for the tenant to establish prima facie triable issues, and not the conclusive proof of dislodging the claim of bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the respondent/ landlord. The learned senior coun