The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the need for an error apparent on the face of the record to disturb the decision.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners, tenants assailing the eviction order dated 07.06.2019 ('impugned eviction order') passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi ('Trial Court') in RC ARC No. 5589/16 whereby the Petitioners' application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and the impugned eviction order was passed in favour of the Respondent, landlord with respect to shop no.3 (9'11''x 8' 5'') at ground floor of H. No. 2552, Onkar Nagar A, Tri Nagar, Delhi-35, measuring 83.4 sq. ft. ('the tenanted premises').

Brief facts

2. Admittedly, the Respondent along with his brothers is the exclusive owner of H. No. 2552, Onkar Nagar A, Tri Nagar, Delhi-35 ('the subject property'), measuring 54 sq. yds, consisting of ground floor, where shop nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are located, first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor. The Respondent along with his brothers and the family resides on the upper floors in the subject property. It is stated that in a mutual partition settlement of the family, the entire ground floor consisting of the four shops has fallen to the exclusive share of the Respondent herein.

3. The Respondent, landlord, after his retirement from his employment started his business in shop no.4, located in the subject property. The said shop admittedly measures 8.5 sq. ft. and was not sufficient for carrying on his business and therefore he filed the eviction petition for recovery of the tenanted premises (shop no.3), which abuts his shop no.4.

4. The Trial Court after perusal of the pleadings of the parties held that the Petitioners' leave to defend failed to raise any triable issues and the contents of the said application failed to rebut the presumption of bona fide requirement of the Respondent.

Submissions of the Petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Respondent has no bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises. He states that since the Respondent has sufficient pension income post-retirement, he has no dire need for the tenanted premises. He states that the plea of the Respondent that he intends to carry on business from the tenanted premises is a triable issue, which the Trial Court ought to have appreciated and thus granted the leave to defend.

5.1. He states that the Respondent admittedly has possession of shop nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the subject property. He states that the Respondent, thus has sufficient alternate suitable accommodation for carrying on his business of sale of kitchen utensils etc., from the said shops.

Submissions of the Respondent

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the Respondent states that admittedly shop nos. 1 and 2 are being used by the sons of the Respondent for carrying out their separate and independent businesses. He states that the said shops are therefore not available to the Respondent herein to carry on his own business.

6.1. More specifically, he states that shop no. 1 is being used exclusively by Sh. Jai Prakash, son of the Respondent, for his business. Similarly, shop no.2 is being used exclusively by Sh. Anand, son of the Respondent for operating his own business of sale of utensils in the name of Anand Plastic Store. He states that therefore the said shop nos.1 and 2 are not vacant and therefore not available to the Respondent.

6.2. He states that admittedly shop no. 4 which admeasures 8.5 sq. ft (8 ft 5 inches x 1 ft) is being used by the Respondent for carrying on his independent business of sale of utensils. He states that since shop no. 4 is very small in size, the Respondent has been compelled to vend from the street outside the said shop due to paucity of space. He states that the Respondent has also been fined by the Municipal Council of Delhi ('MCD') for vending on the public street.

6.3. He states that, in view of the aforesaid the tenanted premises (shop no.3), is required by the Respondent to for properly keep