JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J.:— This appeal by special leave is directed against the Order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing an application in revision filed by the appellant before the High Court.

2. In the view that we take in the case, it is not necessary to give the facts in detail as they are already contained in the Order of the Rent Controller. The plantiff-respondent had filed the petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of his bona fide requirement in respect of the premises which consist of two rooms one store room, open verandah, courtyard, bathroom, latrine, kitchen on the first floor and barsati on the second floor, with open terrace. The eviction was sought for in respect only of the first floor and portion of the second flood, being the ground floor occupied by the landlord-respondent himself. The property in dispute was originally evacuee property but subsequently the plaintiff-respondent appears to have acquired the property in dispute from the custodian. The appellant filed an application before the Rent Controller for leave to defend the suit under the provisions of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rent Act) but the Rent Controller rejected the application as it fount that no arguable points were raised in the defence by the appellants. Against that order, the appellant went up to the High Court in revision which set aside the order of the Rent Controller and the decree for eviction passed by him and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for permitting the appellant to defend the suit. Thereafter, the appellant filed his written statement and took various pleas challenging the title of the respondent as also the bona fide requirement alleged by the landlord. The Rent Controller, after taking the evidence of the parties as required under Section 25B. found that the plaintiff-respondent had proved his case of bona fide requirement and consequently passed a decree for eviction of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which having been dismissed, the appellant moved the High Court in revision which also was summarily dismissed and hence this appeal. We might also mention that the respondent before seeking the decree for eviction had moved the competent authority under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Slums Act) and got the permission from the competent authority for evicting the appellant.

3. In support of the appeal, Mr. V. C. Mahajan, raised two points, one of which he did not press, and, in our opinion, rightly. The first point which was raised by the appellant was regarding the constitutional validity of Section 25B of the Rent Act. In view of our decision in Civil Appeal No. 1291 of 1978 (D/- 4-10-79) Kewal Singh v. Smt. Lajwanti (report in AIR 1980 SC 161) which has upheld the constitutional validity of the Rent Act, the contention regarding the vires of S. 25B of the Rent Act does not survive and was, therefore, given up.

4. The other contention raised by Mr. Mahajan was that the competent authority under the Slums Act had only granted permission with respect to a portion of the premises in dispute and, therefore. adecree for eviction by the Controller could not have been passed for the entire premises. In support of the contention. the learned counsel relied on a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 789 Lal Chand v. Radha Kishan where this Court observed as follows:-

"The authorities under the Slum Clearance Act who are exclusively invested with the power to determine whether a decree for eviction should be permitted to be executed and, if so, to what extent, had finally decided that question, refusing to allow the respondent to execute the decree in respect of the ground floor premises. By the present suit, the respondent is once again asking for the relief which was included in the larger relief sought by him i