( 1 ) THIS petition filed on behalf of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the tenants) under Section 25b (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated 3rd February, 1994 passed by Shri O. P. Gupta, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi in the eviction petition bearing No. E-211/82.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Smt. Kiran Wati (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) who is the owner of house No. l46, Gali Batasha Chawri Bazar, Delhi filed aneviction petition bearing No. E-211/82 against the tenants in respect of one room measuring 8 x12. 9", two kothas measuring 8 x8. 3" and 8 x7. 5", kitchen, bath and W. C. on the ground floor of the said house which were let out to the tenants in the year 1961. As per averments made in the eviction petition, the premises in dispute are residential in nature and were let out for the same purpose and the same were being used by the tenants for residential purpose. It is further stated in the petition that the family of the petitioner consists of herself, her husband, two sons, their wives and two children. it was also stated that younger son of the petitioner was married in December, 1980. It was further stated that the petitioner was in possession of the entire first floor in the suit property which consisted of two bed rooms and one drawing room. It was then pleaded that one of the daughters of the landlady was married at Delhi and she had been also visiting her several times. It was further stated that it was not possible for the landlady to accommodate the entire family in the accommodation already in her occupation and the premises which were in occupation of the tenants were needed by the landlady for her bonafide requirement.

( 3 ) "the tenants in their written statement submitted that the suit premises were let out to them by the landlady in July, 1961 for both residential and non-residential purpose vide rent agreement dated 30th June, 1961, though a copy of the said rent agreement was not supplied to them. It was further stated in the written statement that in the year 1968-69 the husband of the landlady raised an illegal objection with regard to the user of the suit premises for non-residential purposes and thereafter with the intervention of one common relation Shri Hazari Lal, the matter was settled and a fresh rent Agreement between the landlady and the tenants was executed on 25th November, 1969 and pursuant to this agreement in the Rent Receipt No. 30 dated 25. 1. 69 issued by the landlady a rubber stamp showing the purpose of letting as residential and non-residential was affixed. It was further stated that the tenants had confidence in the landlady and her husband and so they never insisted for the aforesaid rubber stamp indicating the purpose of letting on the rent receipts issued to them subsequently. Regarding bonafide requirement of the landlady, it was stated in the written statement that there was no such requirement as the landlady had let out a big room measuring 15 x9 on the ground floor of the property for commercial purpose to one Sharma and Co. in the year 1977-78, after accepting a huge Pagri.

( 4 ) IN the replication the landlady controverted the allegations made in the written statement. It was specifically denied in the replication that the suit premises were let out to the tenants for residential-cum-commercial purpose. It was stated that in fact when the suit premises were let out to the tenants in the year 1961, both the tenants were in employment in private firms and were not doing any business. It was further stated in the replication that the alleged agreement dated 30. 6. 1961 was not executed and the landlady had also not executed any rent agreement dated 25. 11. 69 nor any rubber stamp showing the purpose of letting as residential and non-residential was affixed on receipt No. 30 dated 25. 11. 69. It was also stated that the counter-foil of the sa