( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of dismissal of the application for leave to defend, the petitioners (original respondent) have filed the present revision petition. The impugned order was passed by the Rent Controller on 6. 1. 1999.

( 2 ) MR. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that the application for leave to defend was filed in 1991 whereas the reply to the said application was filed by the respondent (eviction petitioner) in the year 1998 which would demonstrate that the respondent s requirement was not bona fide. Mr. Rohtagi has argued that the respondent was not the owner of the premises in question as original owner Shri D. V. S. Gupta, who let out the premises through his father Shri Laxmi Narayan to the petitioner in 1944 had sold the property in 1970 to one Dr. Diwan Singh and as Dr. Diwan Singh had not paid the total consideration, therefore, the title of Dr. Diwan Singh was defective and he could not have executed a sale-deed in favour of Smt. Harbans Kaur, the mother of the respondent (landlord/owner ). He has further contended that Smt. Harbans Kaur could not have made any Will in respect of the suit property in favour of the respondent. What has been argued before me by Mr. Rohtagi is that property continued to stand in the name of Shri D. V. S. Gupta.

( 3 ) MR. Rohatagi has further contended that purpose of letting was also composite. Mr. Rohtagi has contended that the petitioners have placed on record the photo-copy of certain business documents to show that the petitioners were carrying on the business in the said premises from the beginning. the same are business letters allegedly written on the letter heads of different companies which have business with the petitioners concern i. e. M/s Malhotra Enterprises and that would demonstrate that the premises has been used right from the inception of the tenancy to the knowledge of the respondent for composite purpose and in his support has cited Smt. A. N. Kapoor Vs. Smt. Pushpa Talwar JT 1992 (1) SC 348. Mr. Rohtagi has contended that the property has been used for commercial purposes for the last thirty years and the continuous and consistent use without any demur by the respondent ought to have been held by the Rent Controller that the property was out of the ambit of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Mr. Rohtagi has argued that Hanuman Lane is now being used as a commercial area for non-residential purposes.

( 4 ) ARGUING that the requirement of the respondent was not bona fide in the leave to defend application it was stated that the respondent was residing at A-1/292 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi on the first floor. It was contended that respondent was not in fact residing in the said rented accommodation and was holding this accommodation only to make out a case for eviction of the petitioners. Mr. Rohtagi contended before me that the respondent was living in a palatial house named as Arora Villa, at Gadhaipur, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Although, no argument was raised before me about the alleged alternative accommodation available at C-2, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and another house at A-296, Shivalik, Enclave, New Delhi as grounds set out in the leave to defend application.

( 5 ) MR. Rohtagi laid great stress on the bill of the electricity department for the consumption of the electricity at the tenanted premises of the respondent at Safdarjung Enclave to show that respondent never lived at that premises.

( 6 ) THE counsel for the respondent contended that house at Gadhaipur belonged to the son of the respondent who is living with his family and the respondent has no legal right to stay in the said house.

( ) CONTROVERTING the argument of the counsel for the petitioners regarding ownership it was contended that a sale-deed executed by Dr. Diwan Singh in favour of the mother of the respondent was filed on record. Once the sale-deed has been brought on record duly registered and executed, the pet