Failure to file a reply may lead to the averments of the petitioner being deemed admitted, and a finding on the bona fide need of the respondent must not be perverse in law.

( 1 ) AN Application No. 3139/95 was filed by the petitioner under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC, inter aia, praying that the respondenttenant died on 13th July, 1995 leaving behind the following legal representatives : Sh. Rajeev Sharma son Sh. Anil Sharma do Sanjeev Sharma do Deepak Sharma do Rishi Sharma do Ms. Neelam Daughter Sheetal do Dolly do Gitanjali do Prakash Rani widow. Notice to this application was issued to the legal representatives. Mr. B. S. Malik appeared for all the legal representatives except L. R. No. 3 and made a statement before the Court on 12th February, 1997 that reply has been filed by LRs 1,4 to 9 and 10 which was not on record. It was directed that Counsel of LRs of deceased respondent-tenant may place the reply on record.

( 2 ) FROM the perusal of the record, I find that no reply has been placed on record in terms of the order passed by this Court on 12th February, 1997. As no reply has been filed, the averments of the petitioner is deemed to have been admitted by the respondent. The legal representatives, as mentioned in para 2 of the application, may be substituted in place of deceased-tenant. Amended memo of parties be filed.

( 3 ) MR. Maheshwar Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner says that amended memo of parties has been filed. I find the same on page 17 of the paper book. "the same be taken on record.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller wherein the eviction petition of the petitioner was dismissed under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

( 5 ) THE eviction petition was dismissed on 22nd August, 1991. Nobody has been appearing for the respondent although the case has been on the regular board for hearing. In the interest of justice, I did not pass any adverse order when the matter was listed for disposal on 20th September, 1999.

( 6 ) IT was not disputed before the Additional Rent Controller that the petitioner was not the owner or the landlord of the premises in question. The purpose of letting was also admitted to be residential. Mr. Maheshwar Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller on the bona fide need of the respondent was perverse in law. What the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that after reaching the conclusion that there was no res-judicata in filing of the second eviction petition, still the Additional Rent Controller did not take into consideration the size of the family of the petitioner.

( 7 ) IT has been contended before me that the first eviction petition was filed in the year 1978 under Section 14 (l) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act. However the same was dismissed in the year 1981. Second petition was filed under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in the year 1989 and that was dismissed on the account that the petitioner was accustomed to live in two rooms alongwith more or less the same number of family members, the petitioner could not say that the possession of the four rooms alongwith store was not sufficient for the same family members. In 1991 when the petition was dismissed, the petitioner had two married sons who were of the age of 41 and 38 years old. The petitioner had three daughters. One of them was unmarried at the time when the second petition was filed. Now she has been married. The eldest son of the petitioner who was 41 years old had one son who was of the age of 18 years. The second son of the petitioner had two daughters who were of the age of 8 and 3 years respectively.

( 8 ) NOW the petitioner is 84 years old. He lost his wife. He has two sons aged 51 years and 49 years. One son has got a son aged 28 years. Second son of the petitioner has got two daughters aged 18 years and 13 years. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner has got four rooms, still that accommodation falls short of the requirement of the petitioner.