( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by M/s. Silvertoe Manufacturing Company (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) and Smt. Parkash Devi (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner No. 2) under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the Act) against the order dated 24th November, 1992 passed by Shri K. S. Khurana, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller executed the eviction petition filed by Smt. Usha Soi (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act and passed the eviction order against the tenant and petitioner No. 2.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the landlady who is the owner/landlady of the premises bearing No. G-14, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi had let out the first floor of the. said house consisting of drawing-cum-dining room, three bed rooms with bath rooms and two dressing rooms, kitchen, pantry, verandahs and one bed room (on the terrace barasati floor) with bath room, two servant quarters and one garage as shown in the site plan filed alongwith the petition to the tenant for residential purpose of petitioner No. 2 who at the relevant time was the proprietor of the tenant, vide agreement dated 15th May, 1970 at a monthly rent of Rs. l500/ per month. Prior to April, 1983, the landlady alongwith her husband had been living at 22, Daryaganj, Delhi which belonged to his son Shri Ashok Soi. While living in Daryaganj House, the landlady filed an eviction petition against M/s. Methodex Business System who was the tenant on the ground floor of the suit premies and as a result of the order passed in that petition, the landlady got the possession of the ground floor portion of the premises in the year 1983.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER on 29th October, 1987, the landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act against the tenant and petitioner No. 2. In this petition, inter alia, it was stated that the age of the landlady was 67 years and her husband was 74 years old and was a heart patient and during the past one year his health had deteriorated. It was further stated that the accommodation available with the landlady consisted of drawing-cum-dining room, two bed rooms, three bath rooms, one pooja-cum-store rooms, one kitchen, two servant quarters, verandahs, lawn and a garage. It was then stated that the landlady had two married daughters, namely, Smt. Asha Chopra and Smt. Esha Chopra and a son, namely, Ashok Soi. It was further stated that on the advice of the doctors, it had become necessary for the landlady to have one of her children staying with petitioner and her husband all the time so that they were properly looked after and cared for. . It was further stated that her married daughter Esha Chopra and her husband had moved to Delhi to look after the landlady and her husband and they had already arranged for the admission for their school going children in Modem School, New Delhi. It was, therefore, pleaded that the landlady required the entire accommodation in the suit premises i. e. first floor and one roomonbarsati floor of the house G-8, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi which was in possession of the tenant.

( 4 ) THE tenant and the petitioner No. 2 in their written statement admitted that the petitioner was the landlady of the suit premises. It was, however, stated in the written statement that the suit premises were used by the petitioner No. 2 for her residence and office. It was further stated that the son of the landlady, Ashok Soi was never dependent upon her. It was then stated that the landlady got the possession of the ground floor portion of the premises-in the year 1983 and in her eviction petition for recovery of possession of ground floor, she had claimed the premises for herself and her husband and the size of the family of the landlady remained the same even on the date of filing of the petition and as such the requirement of the landlady was not bonafide. It was also al