JUDGMENT

Sachin Datta, J. The present revision petition filed under section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the `DRC Act') assails the order/judgement dated 17.01.2019 passed by CCJ cum ARC, Pilot Court (Central District) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (the `rent controller') in eviction petition No. 930/2018, whereby the rent controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner and allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent.

2. The respondent/landlord filed the instant eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act to recover possession of one shop on the ground floor in premises bearing no. 29/24, Shakti Nagar, Delhi (the `tenanted premises'), let out to the petitioner/tenant, on the ground of bona fide requirement of respondent's daughter to open a coaching institute for her livelihood.

3. It was stated in the eviction petition that the building in question consists of two floors. On the ground floor there are 9 shops, all of which are let out to different tenants. The tenanted premises is one of such shops. It was also stated that there are 3 rooms, one kitchen, and a toilet on the ground floor, however, entry towards those rooms is from the small lane/street and not from the front portion of the building. It is further stated that on the first floor there are 3 rooms, kitchen and toilet, and the same are being used by the respondent for residential purposes. It was stated that the respondent has no commercial accommodation available for her daughter to run a coaching institute.

4. A leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner, wherein, inter-alia, it was stated that no notice of the eviction petition was served upon the petitioner personally. It was contended that the petitioner had gone to her village in Meerut U.P. on 05.11.2018 where she fell ill and remained under medical treatment, and it was only when she returned to Delhi on 31.12.2018, that she became aware of the eviction petition and filed her application seeking leave to defend. It was stated that in any case, notice/summons mentioned the next date of hearing as 14.01.2019 and as such the husband/representative of petitioner who was served with the summons was under the impression that the petitioner was to enter appearance by the said date. It was stated that the leave to defend application is filed within the statutory period after the petitioner attains the knowledge of the eviction petition.

5. It was averred in the leave to defend application that the respondent's daughter is financially independent, being already in employment and as such there is no possibility of her starting any coaching institute. It was further stated that the need of the daughter can be met from three rooms on the ground floor of the building, and for which a large door/opening/entrance can also be taken out from the gali/street side. It was further stated that the respondent has filed a false site plan. A site plan was filed by the petitioner contending that the respondent is already in possession of two shops on the ground floor, which as per the eviction petition are stated to be in possession of Mr. Afroj and another by Ms. Madhu Malik. Further, it was stated that in respect of one other shop, an eviction petition was filed by the respondent against the tenant/Mr. Avtar Singh and the said eviction petition has already been allowed and the said tenant has already offered possession to the respondent, however, the respondent is not taking the possession of the same. It is contented that alleged bona fide need of the daughter can be met from the said shops.

6. The leave to defend application was accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 CPC seeking that the delay, if any, in filing the leave to defend application be condoned and the eviction petition be decided on merits. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent to the said applica