Judgment INDERMEET KAUR, J. 1. The impugned judgment is dated 11th May, 2011; eviction petition filed by the landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act’) had been decreed; the application seeking leave to defend filed by the respondent/tenant had been dismissed. The suit premises is a shop forming a part of property bearing no. 1/7226, Shivaji Park, Shahdara, Delhi (as depicted in red colour in the site plan filed in the trial court record). 2. The eviction petition had been filed by the landlady on the ground that she is the owner and landlord of the aforeoted shop; her husband has let out this property measuring 44.44 square yards to the tenant for commercial purposes; the tenant was irregular in the payment of rent; the petitioner is a widow lady having no independent source of income except a meager rental income; she has one son and two daughters who are dependent on her for their residential and financial needs; the petitioner is suffering from extreme financial hardship to maintain the family and to meet her day to day expenses; she wants to resume the family milk dairy business which was earlier been carried out; she requires this shop to run the family business with the help of her domestics and to meet her needs. 3. Leave to defend was filed by the tenant. The first submission of the tenant is that the landlady has a sound financial position as she is a pensioner and getting more than ` 8,000/- per month from DESU department and she has four other shops which have been tenanted out from where she is getting monthly rental income of ` 12,000/- from all the four tenants and thus, she has sufficient income. The second submission was also that she also has an alternative property at Karawal Nagar, Delhi and the present shop is thus not required by her bonafidely. 4. The reply filed by the landlady to the corresponding averments have been perused; there is no doubt that the landlady is having rental income as also the fact that she is drawing a pension. However, the amounts as mentioned in the application for leave to defend have been denied; in the reply, details of the pension amount or the rental income which the landlady is receiving have not been disclosed. However, the amounts as mentioned in the application for leave to defend have been denied; in the reply, details of the pension amount or the rental income which the landlady is receiving have not been disclosed. Be that as it may, even presuming that she is receiving a pension of ` 8,000/- per month and ` 12,000/- per month as a rental income, the submission of the landlady that she requires the present shop for running an active business which was the earlier business of the family (which was for running a dairy business) substantiates her bonafide need. This is business activity in which she wants to engage herself and to pursue it from the afore-noted shop; merely because she has got a financial return by way of certain passive credits in her account (by way of rent and pension) would not deprive her of the need made out by her to have an active lifestyle and to resume the business of dairy and milk products which admittedly was the earlier business of the family. It is also not in dispute that she has a son and two daughters; she can seek help of her son and also of her domestics to run this business; this has been explained by her in the eviction petition; her financial needs for her growing family comprising of one son and two daughters are needs which cannot be sufficiently met out of her rental income and her pension and thus, her requirement for the present shop for running the afore-noted business has clearly been made out and prima facie established by her. This objection of the tenant thus has no merit. 6. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlady has an alternate accommodation at Karawal Nagar has been vehemently disputed by her; even otherwise, no further details have been given by the tenant; a mere bald submission by the tenant that an alternative accommodation is owned by the landlord without any further details having been disclosed and which fact has been vehemently denied by the landlady would again raise no triable issue. On this count also the objection of the tenant is clearly without any merit. 7. The site plan filed on record has been perused. On this count also the objection of the tenant is clearly without any merit. 7. The site plan filed on record has been perused. The site plan shows that the disputed shop measures 44.44 square yards and has been tenanted out to the tenant; the landlady is living in West Gaurakh Park, Shahdara; all these particulars have been disclosed by her in her eviction petition. The need for the present shop is for a commercial purpose; that is for running her family business; on no count does any triable issue arise. Time and again, this court has held that unless and until a triable issue arises, leave to defend should not be granted in a routine or in a mechanical manner. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (1982) 3 SCC 270 Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Anr. vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal, has noted as follows:- “Prayer for leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima facie case has been disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclosed a prima facie case i.e. such facts as to what disentitles the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the Court should not mechanically and in routine manner grant leave to defend.” 8. No other argument has been urged or raised. In this background, the eviction petition having been decreed and the application seeking leave to defend having been dismissed suffers from no infirmity. The petition is without any merit; it is dismissed.