Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the order dated 2nd November 2011 passed by the ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioner was dismissed in an eviction petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner in respect of a shop bearing no. 19 B/2, Ground Floor, New Market, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110005 (hereinafter referred to as “the tenanted premises”)

2. The brief facts in the present case are that the respondent No.1 after his retirement from the earlier business, he intended to start the business of Auto Spare parts and in absence of any other place, he required the tenanted premises for starting his said business. However, in the leave to defend application, it was contended by the petitioner that the respondents do not require the tenanted premises for running any commercial activity or for any other purpose. It was stated that respondent no.1 is over 75 years of age and is leading a retired life, while respondent no.2 is a house wife, so there was no intention to use the tenanted premises for any purpose. The only object to file the eviction petition was to get a vacant possession thereof and construct a shopping complex and sell or let out the same. It was also stated that the respondents do not have a son and their only daughter is already married and well settled.

3. The petitioner contended in the leave to defend application that respondents are very rich and least affected by the non-recovery of rent since as per the averments made by the respondents, rent had not been paid since April 2004 and admittedly no steps were taken to recover the same, which implies that the same is a very meagre amount for them. It was contended that the respondents are earning huge income from large number of properties inherited by them from their respective parents. The earlier business as alleged by the respondents, never existed and also that the document regarding the retirement of the respondent is a fabricated document.

4. While in the reply to the leave to defend application the respondents contested the averments so made by the petitioner; in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner the averments made were reiterated and reaffirmed.

5. Dismissing the leave to defend application of the petitioner, the learned trial court observed that there was no dispute regarding the relationship of the parties. On the issue of alternative accommodation, it was observed that though the petitioner had contended that the respondents had a large number of properties and earning huge incomes thereof, the petitioner had neither stated where the said properties were located nor provided their municipal number. There was nothing brought on record to show that respondents had alternative suitable accommodation for their requirement. On the issue of bonafide requirement, it was by the learned trial court that old age, as alleged by the petitioner, cannot be a bar to do any business. For the purpose of bonafide requirement the court has to see whether a landlord needs the tenanted premises for himself or for his family members, dependent upon him. It was opined that if a landlord is stating that he is not doing any business and he needs the tenanted premises to start his new business of auto spare parts of which he has some experience, then the court has no reason to disbelieve his bonafide need particularly when the tenant has not brought anything on record to show that the landlord is doing any other business and he does not require the tenanted premises for his new business. In view thereof an eviction order was passed against the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the present petition on the ground mainly that the same is based on surmises and conjunctions and was passed in contravention to the set