JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J. - By way of this petition, brought under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner/tenant has assailed order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, whereby application of the petitioner/tenant for leave to contest the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed and consequently eviction order was passed in respect of mezzanine floor admeasuring 12 feet length x 9 feet width in front and 12 feet width in rear and having a sliced cabin with area 12 feet x 5 feet in the rear partitioned by a brick wall together with the common use of the staircase up to mezzanine floor (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") forming part of the larger premises bearing property No. 33A/1, Swadeshi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. On notice of this petition, the respondent/landlord entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for the present purposes are as follows.

2.1. The present respondent/landlord, claiming himself to be the owner of the larger premises, including the subject premises as detailed above, filed an eviction petition on the ground under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act against the present petitioner/tenant, pleading that the larger premises, of which the subject premises are a part were purchased by his father Shri Daulat Ram Jain by way of registered sale deed dated 30.08.1993; that after death of his father, which occurred on 23.06.2001, his three brothers namely Shri Narinder Pal Jain, Shri Dinesh Jain and Shri Ramesh Jain are carrying on their business of general merchant under the name and style of R.S. Faqir Chand Jain & Sons from ground floor of the larger premises whereas the respondent himself is engaged in his separate business from the said larger premises under the name and style Shree Sobhagya Traders; that during his lifetime, Shri Daulat Ram Jain had inducted the present petitioner as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.50/- which enhanced over a period of time to Rs.330/- per month; that by way of a Will dated 26.03.2001 Shri Daulat Ram bequeathed his estate in the name of all his four sons, who thereby became co-owner of the said larger premises including the subject premises and the entire larger premises were mutated in their name on 05.08.2013; that after death of their father, the present respondent and his three brothers have been jointly collecting rent from the petitioner/tenant; that all four brothers including the respondent are carrying on their business from the ground floor of the said larger premises and above their shop is the subject premises occupied by the petitioner/tenant; that the ground floor of the larger premises occupied by the respondent and his three brothers falls short of space for carrying on their business and their sons, who have attained age of majority, are interested to join the business with their respective fathers but are unable to join on account of paucity of space on the ground floor; and that the subject premises are bona fide required by the respondent and his brothers for expansion of their business as well as for storage of business goods in the mezzanine floor subject premises as they have no reasonably suitable alternate accommodation for that purpose.

2.2. On being served with the summons in the prescribed format, the present petitioner/tenant filed an application for leave to contest, pleading broadly that the present respondent in his petition had not provided the material details and facts as to how the extra space is required by him, and the pleadings qua the bona fide requirement are completely vague; that the present respondent had failed to explain as to how he intends to expand his business; that sons of the present respondent and his brothers Shri Ramesh Jain and Shri Dinesh Jain are already engaged in private jobs while son of Shri Narinder Pal Jain is carrying out separate business under the