( 1 ) THIS Revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ARC ) against the proceedings initiated under Section 14 (1) (e)of the Delhi Rent control Act. In the impugned Order the ARC has, in the carefully structured judgment, considered all the necessary aspects in the eviction petition for bonafide requirement. The interference of the High Court in its revisionary jurisdiction is not called for unless the findings of the ARC are perverse, or contrary to an established principles of law. It should be borne in mind that the Legislature has found wisdom in the removal of rights of Appeal, in the interest of an expeditious disposal of claims in the eviction of tenanted premises on the bonafide need of the owner of the premises.

( 2 ) THE ARC has concluded that the Petitioner/ landlady, namely, Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the premises in question and has rejected the tenant s averment that her brother was the owner. This brother has deposed in her favour and has repulsed this assertion of the Tenant; he has categorically stated that the Petitioner is the Owner. This fact has not even been controverted in these proceedings. Similarly the ARC has also found that the premises were let for residential purposes only. The converse position has not been canvassed before me.

( 3 ) THE main plank of the argument of learned counsel for the Tenant/revisionist is that since the landlady had not appeared in the witness box herself, it was not possible for the ARC to have returned a verdict favourable to her in respect of the pivotal question of her bona fide claim. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the Tenant on Nanalal Goverdhandas and co. and others v. Smt. Samratbai Lilachand Shah, AIR 1981 Bombay 1 in which a Learned Single Judge of the bombay High Court had expressed the view that if the landlord does not step into the witness-box it cannot be said that he reasonably and bona fide requires the premises since this necessity cannot be delegated. In shri Virendra Pal v. Sri Daljit Singh Sandhu, 1978 (1) r. C. J. 365, a Learned Single Judge of this Court had expressed the same opinion on the grounds that an adverse presumption should be drawn that the landlord was not willing to swear that he required the premises bona fide for his residence. In Manohar Lal and Anr. v. Pushpawati Jain, 49 (1993) DLT 653, another Learned single Judge of this Court was of the view that it was incumbent upon the landlady to have appeared in the witness-box so as to make her state of mind clear i. e. that she intended to live away from her married sons and grand children; failure on her part left no alternative but to draw an adverse inference. In this case the earlier two precedents were considered and followed.

( 4 ) IN opposition to these decisions learned counsel for the Respondent/landlady has placed reliance on Trilochan Singh v. Usha Dhir, 1993 RLR 482, in which another Learned Single Judge of this Court had not found a fatal flaw in the landlady not entering into the witness box. The learned Judge had distinguished the case of Virendra Pal (supra) as also the decisions in the case of Manohar Lal (supra) on the ground that these owners were not residing in Delhi and that the petition had been filed through an Attorney. In Trilochan singh s case (supra) the Court had also found it of significance that the landlady was residing on the First floor of the very premises of which eviction was sought in respect of the Ground Floor. This case, therefore, did not run counter to the other two decisions of this court.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Tenant ought to have disclosed that a Division Bench of the Bombay High court, in Nathulal Gangabaks Khandelwal and others v. Smt. Nandubai and others, AIR 1984 Bombay 340, has overruled the decision of its Single Judge in Nanalal goverdhandas case (supra ). The Hon ble Division Bench favoured the view that the questi