The main legal point established is that tenants must substantiate any triable issues raised with relevant documents, and mere assertions without supporting material will not be entertained by the court.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This is a revision petition u/S 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”), assailing the order dated 13.04.2012 passed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed and consequentially an eviction order was passed.

2. The respondent filed an eviction petition u/S 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to ground floor of the property bearing no.282, Gali Garhaiya, Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the tenanted premises”) wherein the petitioner is the tenant. The respondent in his eviction petition stated that the tenanted premises is required by him for residential purposes as he has a large family of four daughters, three unmarried sons and three married sons along with their families. The petitioner raised the ground that the landlord had alternative accommodation. He submitted in his leave to defend application and also in this petition that the respondent’s sons are owners of built up three storey property bearing no. 240 Gali Jain Mandir, Shahdara, Delhi, which has four shops on the ground floor and eight rooms on the above floors where they are residing comfortably. It is also submitted that the petitioner along with his brother Mohd. Idris owns property No. 1526, Gali No. 1, Shahdara. In reply to all this, the respondent stated that no property bearing no. 240 Gali Jain Mandir, Shahdara is owned by his sons, and neither does he know of the existence of such a property. As regards the property bearing no 1526, Gali No. 1, Shahdara, the respondent submitted that the said property was exclusively owned by his brother Mohd. Idris and that he has no concern in the said property. The Ld. ARC dismissed the leave to defend application and this order is under challenge in this revision petition.

3. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, I must reiterate that the power of this Court under Section 25–B (8) Act are not as wide as those of Appellate Court, and in case it is found that the impugned order is according to law and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this Court must refrain from interfering with the same. The power under this provision is limited and supervisory in nature. Only when it is evident that the Rent Controller has committed grave illegality or came to a conclusion which was not possible, based on the material produced, should this Court interfere in the orders passed by the Rent Controller.

4. In light of the above principle of law, I have heard the counsels for the parties and examined the records.

5. The case set up by the petitioner was that the respondent had alternate accommodations available to him. He lists out two alternative accommodations allegedly owned by the respondent. Though the petitioner has stated that these alternative accommodations available were with the respondent, he was not able to submit any document supporting his submissions. As regards the property bearing no. 1526, Gali no. 1, Shahdara, the petitioner submitted that there was a relinquishment deed entered into by the petitioner and his siblings by which all the rights and interest in the tenanted premises were relinquished in favour of the respondent. The petitioner urged that in the relinquishment deed, there was reference to the said property bearing no.1526, it could be seen that it was jointly owned by the respondent and his brother Mohd. Idris. But when asked in court to point out this relevant fact in the relinquishment deed, the counsel for the petitioner could not do so and conceded that the relinquishment deed did not contain any such fact as relied upon by him. The petitioner further contended that three sons of the respondent were owners of property No. 240, Gali Jain Mandir, Shahdara, but to substantiate the same, he did not place on record any sort of document. On the other hand, the respondent has categorically denied