( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller passing an order under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short `drc Act ), respondent-tenant has preferred this revision petition. The impugned order was passed on 17. 1. 1989. For the last ten years in view of the injunction order granted by this Court, the order of eviction has not been executed.

( 2 ) MR. R. M. Bagai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the present respondent has acquired and built a palatial house at Rishab Vihar, Delhi after passing of the order of eviction. At the outset, I must say that when eviction petition was filed in the year 1983, leave to defend was filed by the petitioner-tenant and for six long years, trial took place before the Additional Rent Controller. Petitioner-tenant disputed ownership and purpose of letting as well as requirement of the respondent. By a well reasoned order, the Additional Rent Controller in view of the documents and evidence placed before him, decided that the respondent was the owner, purpose of letting was residential and the premises were required bonafidely by the respondent. Is i