The main legal point established in the judgment is the genuine requirement of the landlord for possession under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has assailed the eviction order dated 22nd April, 2013 passed by Additional Rent Controller, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of premises bearing No. B-20/21, East Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 (hereinafter referred to as the “tenanted shop”) which was let out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of ` 1,000/- and wherein the petitioner was doing the business of Auto Mobile.

3. It was stated by the respondents that the tenanted shop was bonafidely required by the son of respondent No.1 namely, Ankit Gaba who had completed his MBA from the University of Northumbria, New Castle (UK) and wished to run an independent business of adhesives in the tenanted shop.

4. In the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, it was contended that the respondents are in possession of suitable alternative accommodation which could be utilized by the son of respondent no.1 for running his business. Reference was made to three such properties. It was contended that the respondents possess sufficient accommodation within the property No. B-20/21, East Krishna Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) as the building comprises of two storeys and the first floor thereof is lying vacant and also there is vacant space on the ground floor thereof. It was also averred that the respondents possess two vacant floors in a building at Bawana Industrial Area and that respondents also own a 400 sq. yards plot in Greater Noida which is also locked and vacant. It was averred that concealment of these alternative accommodations by the respondents show that their need of the tenanted shop is not bonafide.

5. Though the petitioner did not deny the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the ownership of the respondents was denied.

6. The contentions of the petitioner were denied and it was stated by the respondents that the site plan filed by the respondents qua the suit property duly depicted the utilization of the entire portion except the tenanted shop. It was stated that there was no concealment by the respondents who had duly revealed in their petition that one portion of the suit property was in possession of “Anmol Motors” under the partnership of respondent no. 2 and the husband of respondent no.1 whereas another portion was in possession of “Anmol Packs” under the partnership of the respective husbands of the respondents.

7. The respondents had disclosed the factory at Bawana Industrial Area and that the operation of the said factory was by the respective husbands of the respondents for their own independent business and that no portion of the said property was vacant.

8. In context to the property at Noida, it was submitted that the same was situated in U.P. and not in Delhi and that there were already several share holders in the Private Limited Company owning the said plot of land.

9. The issue before this Court is, whether said findings call for any interference by this Court in revisionary jurisdiction in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case or not. It is settled law and it has been held from time to time by various courts that the revision under Section 25B(8) cannot be regarded as a first appeal nor can it be as restricted as the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The High Court would have jurisdiction to interfere if it is of the opinion that there has been a gross illegality or material irregularity which has been committed or the Controller has acted in excess of his jurisdiction or has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. In other words, this Court has only to see whether the learned Rent Controller has committed any jurisdictional error and has passed the order on the basis of material available befor