JUDGMENT Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. 1. The petitioner (tenant) is aggrieved by an order dated 27.3.2008 passed by the learned ARC whereby his application under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for permission to leave to contest the eviction petition was dismissed. .2. The premises consisting of three bedrooms, one store, kitchen, verandah, bath and latrine on the ground floor of the property No. 58, BD Estate, Timarpur, Delhi was let out to the tenant on 1.11.1981. The landlord (respondent) stated his family consisted of himself, his wife, six daughters and one son. He was residing at first floor of the property consisting of three rooms, two stores, kitchen, lobby, bath and latrine and one store on the ground floor. The second floor of the property was in possession of his daughter Smt. Anjali Garg, who was living there along with her son. The son of the respondent/landlord was working in Australia having one son and daughter. His family used to frequently visit India and live with the landlord during that period. The other married daughters also used to visit him with their children and stay in the suit property. 3. The landlord submitted that he was aged 70 years and his wife was aged 67 years, both of them had difficulty in climbing the stairs and need to live on the ground floor. The landlord had become ostro-arthritis while he was in Nigeria and he was operated for postrute gleclui in the year 1997. After operation, he became weak and his weakness increased because of growing age. He was also hospitalized in March, 2001 for ulcer and polyburst in the stomach. His wife suffered from slipped disc in the backbone while in Nigeria. Both of them now need to live at the ground floor. He and his wife were taking help in their old age of their daughter Smt. Anjali Garg and her son, who were living at the second floor. His daughter was dependant on him for the purpose of accommodation and she was living in the second floor which was not sufficient for her since she had a son of marriageable age and a separate room was required for him. The landlord contended that a drawing room, a dining room, puja room, guest room and a room for their children was required. The landlord contended that a drawing room, a dining room, puja room, guest room and a room for their children was required. Besides this, he also required two rooms for his son, who used to come and stay along with his family and whose all goods were lying with the landlord. The landlord also stated that the premises let out to the tenant was lying locked. The tenant was residing in property No. 83 BD.Estate, Timarpur along with his family. This property was acquired by him and his son. .4. The petitioner filed leave to defend application stating therein that the landlord was having several other properties apart from 58 BD.Estate, Timarpur. The next plea was that the premises was let out for residential and commercial purposes and the premises was not bona fidely required by the landlord. The diseases stated by the landlord were doubted as the same were not found by the tenant in the medical dictionary. The landlord, according to petitioner merely had a wish and desire to live at the ground floor and mere wish and desire was not sufficient for obtaining eviction. The landlord and his wife had no difficulty in climbing stairs; they had no actual and existing need for the tenanted premises. It was also stated that site plan filed by the landlord was wrong. The lobby of 11? 7.5? X 9? 9? shown by landlord was covered from all sides and had been converted into a room. The landlord had wrongly designated one room as a store, so the landlord was in possession of five rooms on the first floor besides on store room on the ground floor. There were only two persons in the family i.e. he and his wife. His daughter Smt. Anjali Garg and her son were having separate kitchen and earnings. They were not dependant on the landlord and did not form part of the landlords family. It was also stated that the first husband of the landlord?s daughter Smt. Anjali had expired and she had re-married and was now living with her husband at Uttam Nagar. The other three daughters of the landlord were married and living in their respective matrimonial homes and they visited landlord casually. One daughter had shifted to USA and was not visiting India. The other three daughters of the landlord were married and living in their respective matrimonial homes and they visited landlord casually. One daughter had shifted to USA and was not visiting India. The son of the landlord was settled in Australia for more than a decade and he also visited India for short durations and that too very rarely and the requirements of sons and daughters could be met with a guest room. The petition was filed mala fidely with the intention to get the rent increased. The tenant denied that he owned house No. 83 BD Estate, Timarpur and prayed for grant for leave to defend. 5. The relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied in this case. The plea raised by the tenant that the premises was let out for residential and commercial purpose was not based on any document. The tenant had not stated as to what business he was doing in the premises or had he obtained any permission from a competent authority or was he having a license at the premises. The learned ARC observed that this objection was taken for the sake of taking objection. 6. It was observed by learned ARC that on the one hand the tenant stated that the daughter of the landlord was in occupation of the second floor having separate kitchen and able to maintain herself on the other hand it was stated that the daughter was living at Uttam Nagar without disclosing the address of the Uttam Nagar. The Trial Court considered that mere denials for the sake of denial without giving any details and disclosing the facts, was no denial and was not sufficient for grant of leave to defend. Regarding accommodation, the Trial Court found that the accommodation in his occupation was correctly stated by the landlord. The tenant had not filed any separate site plan, so the site plan filed by the landlord was to be considered as correct. It was also observed that the store room described as a room by the tenant was measuring 9? 4.5? X 8? and it could not be considered as a habitable room, since it was having area of less than 100 sq. yards. Lobby also could not be considered as a living room. It was also observed that the store room described as a room by the tenant was measuring 9? 4.5? X 8? and it could not be considered as a habitable room, since it was having area of less than 100 sq. yards. Lobby also could not be considered as a living room. The Trial Court observed that for the purpose of determining whether a person was dependent upon the landlord for residential purpose or not, it was not necessary that he should be financially dependent on the landlord. The Trial Court found that the landlord and his wife were aged and ailing persons and the need of the landlord to shift t ground floor was bona fide. 7. It is argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the learned ARC wrongly considered that the lobby was not a room though the lobby was covered from all sides. The learned ARC also wrongly held that the daughter was dependent for the residential purpose on the landlord. He submitted that in Hindu Society, a married woman invariably resides with her husband unless the relations between them are strained and she is not able to reside with her husband. It was not the case of the landlord that the relations of his daughter were strained with her husband and therefore, she was residing with him (landlord). It is stated that this itself gave a rise to a triable issue. It was also submitted that the petitioner had stated on affidavit that the premises, in question, was being used for residential-cum-commercial purpose and this was sufficient to give rise to a triable issue. The Trial Court could not have concluded that since the premises was located in residential colony and was residential in nature and therefore, could not have been used for commercial purpose. .8. If a married daughter of landlord is living in part of the property of her father, a plea cannot be taken by a tenant that she was not a family member of landlord and her requirement cannot be taken into consideration. Requirement of a daughter is on the same footing as requirement of a son. 9. It is undisputed fact that the landlord and his wife are aged persons. The ailments suffered by them are not denied. Requirement of a daughter is on the same footing as requirement of a son. 9. It is undisputed fact that the landlord and his wife are aged persons. The ailments suffered by them are not denied. The contention of the petitioner that he was not able to find the ailments suffered by the landlord in the medical dictionary does not mean that the landlord was not suffering from the ailments. It only shows the poor medical knowledge of the tenant, if instead of ?Ostro?, by typographical mistake ?Astro? was typed in eviction petition that would not make the ailment of the landlord disappear from the body. All other ailments are common ailments and inability of the tenant to find them in the medical dictionary would not mean that the landlord and his wife were not suffering from these ailments. A landlord, who has now come of age and is suffering from ailments as stated and finds it difficult in climbing stairs cannot be compelled to live on the first floor because of the convenience of tenant. Once the age catches up with the man and ailments bring him to a situation that he becomes weak, his desire to live at the ground floor has to be considered as a bona fide requirement of the landlord. A landlord cannot be compelled to risk his health for the convenience of the tenant. Even if the accommodation at second floor, which is in occupation of the daughter becomes available to him, the landlord cannot be told that he should move to second floor or why his daughter was living with him and he should not live at the ground floor. The protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act was not meant to perpetuate injustice on the landlord that under all circumstances, even when the landlord has grown old, no tenant will be evicted. In this case, the landlord has been suffering from ostro arthritis and has also been operated upon in the year 1997 and was hospitalized in March 2001 for ulcer and polyburst, his wife is suffering from slipped disc. The requirement of the landlord to live at the ground floor because of advancing age and ailments cannot be held to be mala fide. .10. The requirement of the landlord to have sufficient accommodation for the families of his visiting daughters and son is also not fanciful requirement. The requirement of the landlord to live at the ground floor because of advancing age and ailments cannot be held to be mala fide. .10. The requirement of the landlord to have sufficient accommodation for the families of his visiting daughters and son is also not fanciful requirement. Neither the living of married daughter on the second floor can be of any consequence in doubting bona fide requirement of the landlord. The law has given equal status to the sons and daughters in the property of their father. Law has also bestowed equal responsibility on the sons and daughters for their aged and old parents. In this country, there is no social security system provided by State and the only social security is the security of the family. For gaining this social security of the family by the aged parents, they have to provide their sons and daughters the living accommodation, if available with them. The requirement of the landlord?s sons and daughters and their families even if they are not financially dependent on him cannot be said to be unjustified or a mala fide requirement. If a daughter or son is taking care of the aged father/grand-father and his wife, it would be a bona fide necessity of the landlord, if he desires that his daughter or son should continue to live with him so that he continues to take care of him and his wife. Similarly, when it becomes difficult, due to old age, to move out, a person may desire that his sons and daughters visit him frequently and stay with him and the requirement of the landlord for this purpose cannot be said to be mala fide but is a bona fide requirement. Where the family is large and there are number of sons and daughters, having one guest room is not necessarily sufficient. It is commonly desired by old persons in India that there should be family gatherings. Their sons and daughters should frequently visit them, and on occasions the entire family should live with them for few days. This desire is neither illegal nor unjustified nor is the requirement of the landlord for this purpose mala fide. It is commonly desired by old persons in India that there should be family gatherings. Their sons and daughters should frequently visit them, and on occasions the entire family should live with them for few days. This desire is neither illegal nor unjustified nor is the requirement of the landlord for this purpose mala fide. In the present case, the contention of the tenant that lobby has been covered into a room, only shows that the requirement of landlord was so urgent that a lobby in which doors of all living rooms open, had to be covered by him so that he was able to meet some of his requirements. This does not go against the landlord but only fortifies his bona fide requirement. 11. It is settled law that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act, the power of High Court is supervisory in nature and it is intended to ensure that the Rent Controller confirms to law when he passes the order. The satisfaction of the High Court must be confined to the limited sphere that the order of the Rent Controller is according to law. The High Court in exercise of this jurisdiction is not to substitute its own decision in place of ARCs decision unless the decision given by the Rent Controller was so unreasonable that no Rent Controller could have reached such a finding on the material available. There is a distinction between an appellate and revisional jurisdiction. Revisional power is ordinarily a power of supervision, keeping the subordinate tribunals within the boundaries of four walls of law. I find that in this case, the learned ARC had taken correct view of the law and rightly came to conclusion that no triable issue was raised. 12. All sorts of objections are generally raised whenever an eviction petition is filed by the landlord. Even the ownership of the landlord, the relationship of the landlord-tenant, the purpose of letting and bona fide requirement are denied by the tenant and fake allegations are made that the landlord has other properties. Many allegations are raised only for the sake of raising. Unless, the learned ARC scrutinizes each of the objections raised by the tenant with the help of documents and the material placed on record, the entire purpose of providing summary proceedings in respect of the eviction proceedings fails. Many allegations are raised only for the sake of raising. Unless, the learned ARC scrutinizes each of the objections raised by the tenant with the help of documents and the material placed on record, the entire purpose of providing summary proceedings in respect of the eviction proceedings fails. Thus, it is incumbent upon the ARC to scrutinize all objections carefully in the light of law laid down and in the light of the material placed on record. It cannot be argued that the learned ARC was not required to go into the details of the objections and come to a conclusion on the basis of affidavits and once objections are raised leave to defend must be granted. Leave to defend can be granted only in those cases where the tenant is able to show by material on record that the petition was filed by the landlord mala fidely. The facts sated by him about his age, family accommodation were false. 13. In the present case, the tenant has failed to raise any triable issue. The requirement of the landlord has been considered by the learned ARC and found to be bona fide. I find no ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed