The tenant must disclose a prima facie case to warrant the grant of leave to defend in eviction cases under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as the “Act”) against the order dated 21.04.2012 passed by Learned Addl. Rent Controller (ARC) whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner tenant in eviction petition E-158/2011, was dismissed.

2. The said eviction petition was filed by the respondent/landlord stating that he is the owner and landlord of property No.C-2/1, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51 (suit property). It was submitted that on representation of the petitioner firm’s partner namely Deepak Khanna, on 01.11.1978, the firm was inducted as tenant by the respondent in the shop bearing private No.3 (tenanted shop) in the aforesaid suit property, vide rent agreement dated 01.11.1978. It was further stated that there were three other tenanted shops in the suit property bearing private No.1, 2 and 4 and remaining portion of the suit property was used by the respondent and his family members for residential purpose. It was submitted that the respondent/landlord required the tenanted shop due to his bonafide need as his dependent son namely Kuldeep Goswami was unemployed for the last 3-4 years and intended to open a general store in the tenanted shop. The lack of availability of any other alternate property in Delhi was also pleaded by the respondent/landlord.

3. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner/tenant, it was averred that the eviction petition being only against the petitioner firm, without impleading the other partners, was not maintainable. It was averred that the petitioner firm in the name of Babaji Medicos was carried on till 31.3.2006 and after that Bharat Bhushan has been running the business of property consultancy from the tenanted shop in his individual capacity. It was averred that the respondent/landlord had concealed the fact that a commercial typing college was being run in the suit property by his son Kuldeep and further the respondent had not filed any documents to prove that his son was unemployed. It was further averred that the respondent had acquired two properties in Delhi, situated in commercial locality, which was not brought to the notice of the Court. It was prayed that, on account of these substantial triable issues, the petitioner/tenant should be afforded the opportunity to defend the eviction petition.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/landlord, it was pleaded that the rent deed dated 01.11.1978 was executed by the petitioner firm and thereafter the respondent had no information regarding the change in the constitution of the tenanted firm and hence the eviction petition filed against the petitioner firm suffered from no infirmity. It was submitted that the commercial typing college was run by the wife of the respondent in one of the residential room which was closed down about 12 years back and the said room is since being used for residential purpose only and hence the non-disclosure of this fact was not relevant to the present proceedings. It was further submitted that the son of the respondent/landlord was previously employed with the Ministry of Defence, but is unemployed from the year 2007 and contention of the tenant, that the respondent’s son is in employment, was erroneous. The respondent also filed certain documents before the Trial Court pertaining to the removal of his son from the services. The allegation made by the petitioner/tenant regarding the respondent having acquired two more properties in Delhi, was also refuted.

5. Upon consideration of assertions and counter assertions and material on record, the learned ARC was of the opinion that the petitioner/tenant could not prove the contentions raised in his affidavit and could not raise any substantial triable issue that would merit the grant of leave to defend application filed by him and consequently passed the eviction order qua the tenanted shop in favour of the respondent/landlord. Hence, the