IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies on the landlord to establish a genuine and bona fide requirement for possession of the premises, and the tenant must prima facie make out a case that disentitles the landlord from obtaining an eviction order.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Revision Petition is preferred under Section 25-B (8)^[Section 25-B (8) - No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section:
Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit.^] of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958^[DRC Act^] by the petitioner, assailing the impugned order dated 23.05.2015 passed by learned CCJ-cum- ARC-I (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi^[ARC^] in the Eviction Petition titled `Smt. Roop Rani Mehra, (Senior Citizen) v. Sh. Jagjit Singh Bhatia', bearing No. E-342/2013, whereby the application of the petitioner, who was tenant in respect of the premises in question, seeking leave to defend under Section 25-B (4)& (5) of the DRC Act was dismissed and an eviction order was passed. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent/landlady expired on 25.05.2018 and her legal heirs now represent her legal interests in the matter.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated, eviction petition u/s 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of the DRC Act was filed by the respondent in the present revision^[Respondent/landlady, also the petitioner in the eviction petition^], seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from one shop measuring 8' x 18' in property No. 820, Katra Neel Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the `tenancy premises'), which was stated to have been let out vide rent note dated 01.04.1982. The petitioner therein claimed that she was the owner and landlady of the tenancy premises, which was jointly owned by herself and her husband; and that her husband left for his heavenly abode on 13.04.2010. Thereafter, all her children, i.e., three sons and one daughter, executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 12.05.2011 in her favour in respect of the entire property including the tenancy shop.

3. It was stated that during the lifetime of Shri Satya Narain Mehra, husband of respondent/landlady, he was the Karta of HUF M/s. Roop Rani Mehra Bal Kishan Dass but after his demise, the HUF was abandoned. She claimed that the tenancy shop was required for her bona fide requirement and to satisfy the need of more accommodation for the members of her family i.e., her children and grandchildren to give them an opportunity to have their own avocation, business and augment the family income. It was stated that the petitioner has three grown up sons and one married daughter and whereas eldest son namely Sh. Satish Mehra, aged about 64 years has been doing small scale business of Ayurvedic medicine from rented shop No. 226-E, Tisra Pushta, Jagjit Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, having one married son namely Sh. Amit Mehra aged about 34 years and one unmarried daughter Ms. Nidhi Mehra aged about 31 years; her second son namely Sh. Anil Mehra was at that time aged 59 years was employed with Union Bank and was due to retire in around 6 months time and having two sons, namely Sh. Vineet Mehra aged 33 years who is married and dealing in share and stock from basement shop bearing No. 501, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi belonging to her late husband while her second grandson namely Sh. Sumit Mehra was aged about 29 years, then unemployed after completing his MBA (finance) from MIT, Ghaziabad; as regards third son namely Sh. Sunil Mehra, he was stated to be 51 years of age and in the business of cloth from window counter in the side wall of shop bearing No. 817, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi; having two sons namely Rahul Mehra aged about 26 years who was running cloth business from shop bearing No. 817/8, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, which is also a window shop while his second son Sh. Sharad Mehra aged about 25 years was awaiting completion of supplementary examination of his graduation; it was further stated t