M.L. Mehta, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short “the Act”) is directed against the order of Addl. Rent Controller (ARC) dated 28.02.2011, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, was dismissed and an eviction order was passed against it.

2. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of one go down on the ground floor in property bearing no.1160, Chhatta Madan Gopal, Maliwara, Chandini Chowk, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as “the tenanted premises”), which was let out for commercial purpose. The respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act on the ground that the tenanted premises was required by the respondent as well as his son, who was dependant on him, to start their own business. The respondent stated that at the time of letting out the tenanted premises i.e. in the year 1979-80, his son was at a tender age and thus he did not require the said premises. At present, however, his son is 32 years and as he is not employed, the bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises has arisen. It was further submitted by the respondent that he was running a dairy business that had to be discontinued due to ban imposed by the Government of Delhi. In addition, the respondent submitted that he had no other available accommodation that would be suitable to carry on the said business. The petitioner filed leave to defend application, wherein he brought forth certain issues. The learned ARC dismissed the said leave to defend vide the impugned order dated 28.02.2011. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant assailing the said order.

3. The law governing consideration of leave to defend application is well settled that at this stage, it is only the averments of the affidavit of the leave to defend application and reply thereto, if any, which are to be considered. If the averments in the affidavit disclose such facts which would ultimately disentitle the landlord from recovering possession, that by itself, makes obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave to defend to the tenant. It is also trite that at the stage of consideration of leave to defend application, the tenant is only required to make a prima facie case and not to make out a strong case. The leave to defend application cannot be refused where the eviction petition is filed without bona fide requirement. If the tenant is able to raise the triable issue, he would be entitled to grant of leave to defend by the Controller. This is primarily because the rival contentions, cannot be decided by way of affidavits only and require reliable material for proof.

4. Though it is settled law that the landlord is the best judge of his preferences and choices as also how he would utilize his premises, and that neither the tenant nor this court can dictate him terms, but at the same time, it is also settled principle of law that it is not on the mere asking of the landlord that the tenant will be thrown out of the premises at the threshold. It is not the subjective decision of the landlord alone, which would entitle him straight eviction order against the tenant, but the objective assessment by the Controller of the bona fide requirement of the landlord. Once the landlord is able to demonstrate his bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises objectively, neither this court nor the tenant would be entitled to dictate its terms upon the landlord and in that situation, the landlord would be the best judge of his decisions and choices as regard to the use of the tenanted premises by him or his dependent family members. In this context, the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Mattulal vs. Radhe Lal, (1974) 2 SCC 365 can be noted, which reads thus:

“12…..It is now well settled by several decisions of this Court including the decision in Sarvate T.B.'s case (supra) and Smt. Kamla Soni's case (supra) that mere assertion on the part of the landlord that he requ