Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) assailing the order dated 3rd May, 2012 passed by the learned SCJ-CUM-RC (South), Delhi dismissing the leave to defend application of the petitioners herein who were respondent No.1 to 8 before the Rent Controller.

2. Brief facts of the matter are that respondent No.1 (petitioner therein) filed an eviction petition against the petitioners and respondent No. 9 therein i.e. Shri Gurdarshan Singh Uppal under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act in respect of property bearing No. 10 Sunder Nagar Market, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “tenanted premises”) as he required the same for commercial purposes for himself and for other family members dependent upon him. It was stated by the respondent No. 1 that his family comprised of himself, his parents, his wife, one daughter and two sons. It was contended that the daughter of the respondent No.1 had joined him and was helping him in his jewellery business which was being carried out by him in the name and style of M/s Padma Gems from a tenanted property in a neighboring shop No. 9A, Sunder Nagar Market, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi and an eviction petition in respect of this shop was already pending adjudication before Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal ARC (South), New Delhi in the matter titled as Shiv Pratap Seonie v. Narendra Kumar Jain.

3. It was also stated in the eviction petition that there is bonafide need in as much as the sons of respondent No. 1, Akshay and Abhay who have done courses in DRAM S-21, improvisational Acting and FINC-S-158, International Business from Harvard University in 2009, would either join him in his business or start their own business. It was further also stated that the premises available with the respondent No. 1 were not sufficient for himself and for the family members dependent upon him and hence he required the tenanted premises bonafidely for himself and for his family members dependent upon him as he has no other alternative accommodation available to him.

4. In the leave to defend application, the petitioners and respondent No. 2 contested the title of the respondent No.1. It was stated that one Mr. Vishva Sud is the exclusive owner of the tenanted premises. It was contended that half of the property No. 9, Sunder Nagar Market, Sunder Nagar numbered as 9A and the entire first floor and second floor of the property bearing No. 9, Sunder Nagar is in possession and in occupation of the respondent No.1.

5. The entire first floor of the property No. 10, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi is lying vacant and which is owned and possessed by the respondent No. 1. It was contended that the daughter and the two sons of the respondent No. 1 were not dependent upon him and their educational certificates were issued by unrecognized universities/colleges.

6. It was further contended that that no separate accommodation was required by the respondent No. 1 as he himself admitted that his daughter is working with him and as far the sons are concerned, the respondent No. 1 is not sure whether his sons would join him in his business or start their own business. It was also contended that the respondent No.1 owned two farm houses, one in Rajokrari and another in Bijwasan and one commercial property at Chandni Chowk. It was stated that at Sunder Nagar, many shops and restaurants were being run on the first floor and the barsati floor.

7. It was further contended that Mr. Vishva Sud, owner cum landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(j) & (k) of the Act against petitioners No. 1, 2 & 5 which was dismissed vide order dated 5th December, 2002 and hence this eviction petition was barred by res-judicata.

8. It was furthermore contended that the respondent No.1 in his legal notice dated 10th April, 2005 and the eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1)(