( 1 ) THIS Revision is directed against the Judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, (hereinafter referred to as arc ) Delhi in a Petition filed under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25b of the Delhi Rent control (hereinafter referred as DRC ) Act, 1958. The judgment is lucid, well reasoned and has dealt with all the relevant questions that have arisen in these proceedings.

( 2 ) THE facts are that the Appellant s tenancy commenced on permission being granted under Section 21 of the DRC Act. The Petition had been filed by Smt. Lajwanti Devi, the mother of the Respondent Smt. Iqbal kaur. The uncontrovertable assumption that can be immediately drawn is that late Smt. Lajwanti Devi was the owner of the premises since this factor cannot be assailed by the tenant as he had been placed in possession of the demised premises by her. Secondly, it must also be assumed that the premises were let for residential purposes only. If the purpose of letting was subsequently changed it must necessarily be expressed in a written document, which in the present case, admittedly does not exist. This argument was raised by Mr. Chandiok, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Peti