( 1 ) REVISION Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Controller rejecting the leave to defend application of the Petitioner-tenant.

( 2 ) MR. R. P. Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Petition was bad for mis-joinder of I D Khernka, the husband of the Petitioner as he was not a tenant. Another contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner was that premises were taken for composite purposes i. e. residential- cum-non-residential purposes. Main stress of the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioner was that the premises were not required by the Respondent bona fidely for her residence or for her family. Lastly it was contended by Mr. Bansal that the affidavit of property broker showing that the Respondent was interested in selling the property after getting it vacated from the present Petitioner has not been considered by the learned Additional Rent Controller while rejecting the application for grant of leave.

( 3 ) LEARNED Additional Rent Controller while disposing of the application of the present Petitioner had held that it was on account of the fact that Mr. I D