( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 25-B (8) or Delhi rent control act 1958 ( hereinafter REFERRED TO to an the Act" only) assails an order dated 11. 9. 2001, passed by learned additional rent controller, Delhi, in eviction petition No. 108/95, passing eviction orders under section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25b of the Act in Favour of the respondent and against the petitioner/tenant.

( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the records.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-tenant assails the impugned eviction order on two grounds firstly That The petition was bad For non-jointer of necessary parties as ail The LRs of the deceased-tenant Pares Ram had not been imploded and secondly That The respondent-landlady had no bonafide need in respect of The premises in question.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for The petitioner argues That The premises in question were let out to deceased Paras Ram and after his death the tenancy had devolved upon his widow, sons and daughters but The eviction petition was Filed against The petitioner widow only without impleading The other LRs. He relies upon a Judgement in Mohd. Idress and another vs. Mst. Nathi reported in 90 (2001 DLT page 274 to contend that the eviction petition filed by The petitioner is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. He also argues that the respondent-landlady is permanently settled in U. K. alongwith her sons and daughters and has no intention of coming back to India. It is submitted That respondent/landlady has no bonafide need in respect of premises in question For her residence. It is also pointed out That The First Floor and Barsati floor of The building in question are still in The possession of The respondent and a sister of The Respondent is living There without payment of rent and as such alternative accommodation is available to The respondent-landlady for stay as and when she visits India or as and when she decides to shift to India. Learned counsel for The petitioner argues that the courts have to draw a distinction between a "desire" to occupy the premises and "requirement" defined under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. He Relied on Sri Kempaiah Vs. Lingaiah and other a reported in VII (2001) SLT 602, Sushila Devi Etc. Vs. Avinash chander reported in 1987 RLR (SC) 137 and Amarjit Singh Vs. Smt. Khatoon Quamarain reported in 1987 (1) RCR page 192 SC.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that after the death of the deceased-tenant Paras Ram his widow was inducted as a tenant in the year 1966 vide rent agreement Ext. R-1 to which no LR had raised any objection till the eviction petition was filed. He Relied on Mohd. Yunus Vs. Nawabuddin reported in 2000 RLR page 74 to argue that the objection raised by the petitioner in this regard is absolutely frivolous. Learned counsel For the respondent-landlady further submits that the respondent and two of her sons are very keen to come back to India inas much as they are unemployed and are living on unemployment pension only. It is also argued that the desire of the respondent-landlady and her family to come back to India is bonafide and for that reason only they had never let out the first floor portion of the house in question and had allowed the sister of the respondent to stay there till they came back to India from U. K. It is submitted that a genuine desire to come back to one s own country is a bonafide requirement and as such the learned ARC was fully justified in passing the impugned order against the petitioner. Relying upon a Judgement, of the Supreme Court of India in shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta reported in AIR 1999 sc 2057, Learned counsel for the respondent argues that this court should not substitute its own view in place of the view taken by the learned Rent Controller which was according to law.

( 6 ) COMING to the question as to whether non-impleadment of the other LRs of the deceased-tenant is fat