( 1 ) C. R. 981 of 2001 is directed against the judgment and order dated 2. 5. 2001 of the Additional Rent Controller (for short controller ) in E-147/96 allowing the petition of the landlord-respondent herein filed under Section 14 (l) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short act ) while giving the tenant-petitioner herein six months time to vacate the premises in question.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as noted by the learned Controller, are as under:

"shri Hardip Singh (hereinafter refered as petitioner) has filed the present eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14 (l) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, in short the Act, against Sh. K. C. Aggarwal (hereinafter referred as respondent), alleging that property no. C-19, Green Park, New Delhi, was purchased by Dr. Premjit Singh, sh. Surinder Pal Singh and the petitioner, all sons of Dr. Onkar Singh from sh. Roshan Lal vide Sale Deed dated 15. 4. 1965, a duly registered document. Dr. Premjit Singh, the co-owner, under the Power of Attorney dated 30. 1. 1968 constituted and appointed his mother, Mrs. Kartar Kaur, as his lawful attorney and she was authorised to collect the rent and let out the premises, etc. Smt. Kartar Kaur was also power of attorney holder of petitioner as well as of Surinder Pal Singh with respect to the property in dispute. Shri Premjit Singh through his General Attorney, Mrs. Kartar kaur leased out the premises No. C-19, Green Park, New Delhi, to the respondent vide lease agreement dated 1st October, 1984. The premises comprised three bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining room, two bathrooms and the open terrace, existing on the ground floor, shown in red in the site plan. Rent was Rs. 2,000/- excluding electricity and water charges. The said letting was done by Dr. Premjit Singh on his own behalf and on behalf of Surinder Pal Singh and the petitioner. Petitioner is the co-owner of the premises in dispute and the co-landlord and now requires the premises bona fide for occupation as a residence for himself and his family members dependent upon him. The petitioner has no other alternative suitable residential accommodation in Delhi except the premises in dispute. The petitioner has no other accommodation available in Delhi to him. The petitioner had been residing at Bangkok, thailand, along with his wife and children as he was employed in United nations Organisation from 20. 1. 1995. The petitioner retired from the said organisation on 6. 10. 1995. In Bangkok petitioner and his family members are living in five storeyed building. There are three bed rooms, one dining room, stereo system room, one store room, one sitting room, kitchen and garrage in property No. 670/755, Charansnitwong, R. D. Soi 68, Bangkok, thailand, which is owned by the real brother of the petitioner s wife. Wife of the petitioner is also working with United Nations office in bangkok and she is expected to retire within 21/ 2years. The petitioner have got two daughters. The elder daughter is studying in School of Engineering in Second Year and the younger daughter is studying in School at bangkok and will be competing her Higher Secondary in the next year. Petitioner along with his family members wants to shift to Delhi and stay in the premises in dispute. His daughters also want to get higher education in Delhi, where there are more and ample facilities for higher education as compared to Bangkok. Petitioner have got two sisters namely Mrs. Rani Rajpal Kaur and Mrs. Sarabjit Kaur. One is settled in Delhi and other in USA. Both sisters are likely to visit their brothers, when the premises are vacated. Dr. Premjit Singh, one of the co-owners has permanently settled in malaysia and Shri Surinder Pal Singh, another co-owner has settled in thailand. However, Dr. Premjit Singh has got two daughters studying medicine at Malipur (India ). During holidays his daughters normally visit Delhi and stay with the petitioner. Accord