( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of dismissal of eviction petition under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the Additional Rent Controller on 21st March, 1987, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. The Additional Rent Controller held that the petitioner was not the owner of the premises in dispute. All the brothers including the petitioner were owners of the property bearing No. E-152, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. Even the purpose of letting was held to be composite one. The requirement of petitioner was considered to be not genuine on the basis that the petitioner was not the sole owner of the suit premises and taking in totality the total number of family members, accommodation was sufficient with the petitioner.

( 2 ) MR. Ravi Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional Rent Controller erred in not appreciating that the property at Kamla Nagar was purchased by the father and the mother of the petitioner although the money for the construction was spent by the mother. Counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the cross examination of petitioner-AW-4 in this regard. Thereafter property was partition