( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act), the petitioner-landlord has challenged an order dated 16th of February 1991 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, dismissing the application filed by him against respondent No. 1 for recovery of possession of Bungalow No. H-4, Green Park Extension, New Delhi under Section 14 (1) (c) of the Act. . he CR. 338/91

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed the eviction application in March, 1986 on the plea that the premises let out to respondent No. l by and under a lease deed dated 2nd of September 1970 for residential purposes are required bona fide by him for occupation as a residence for himself and for members of his family dependent of him, that he along with his brother Harjeet Singh Walia respondent No. 2, is coowner of the premises, and that be has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. He is an Indian national a- Barrister practising law and living in Nairobi (Kenya ). His work permit was due to expire. He wants to come back and settle down in Delhi. His family comprises himself, his wife and two sons who also will. come and live with him here. He does not own any other property in India.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 contested the application. He denied averments made by the petitioner. He pleaded that the petitioner had many times asked him to enhance the rent and that be bad come to know that the petitioner was negotiating with property dealers to sell out the property. He alleged that the application for eviction was mala fide.

( 4 ) THE Additional Rent Controller, after examining evidence produced by the parties, has found that the premises were let for residential purpose only, that the petitioner is co-owner and entitled to make; the application for eviction, and that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The Controller has, however, observed that the petitioner has not produced the work permit which is alleged to have expired, and there is nothing oh record to prove that the petitioner was being forced to close his lucrative. practise and leave Kenya. He has also commented that if the petitioner s requirement was bona fide, he would have shifted to Delhi and would have started residing in the house of his otber. . brother at Hauz Khas which was earlier occupied by his father, or even in some rented accommodation rather than continuing to stay in Kenya. For these reasons, the Controller has concluded that the petitioner did not require the premises bona fide for occupation as a residence for himself or for any other member of his family and dismissed the application. This is the order under challnage.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged these findings as erroneous and perverse. He has referred to the following statement of the petitioner recorded as Public Witness I:-

". . . . . MY work permit to live and practice in Nairobi expired on 16. 4. 87. I require the suit premise s for occupation as a residence for myself and for my family members consisting of my wife, two sons aged 30 and 27 respectively and as I do not want to live any longer in Narobi. I possess Indian Passport. I have also brought the original work permit which expired on 16. 4. 87. I am living in Narobi under force circumstances till such time, I get a vacant possession of the suit premises from the respdt. . . . "

( 6 ) FROM this statement, it is clear that the petitioner had brought with him the original work permit which bad expired. In the absence of any cross- examination, no inference can be drawn against him on this score. Further, it appears that the Controller did not properly appreciate the change in migration laws of Kenya in 1985 that had prompted the petitioner to come back and settle down in India. The provision made. in Sections 18 and 19 of the Kenyan Migration Act read with "legal Notice No. l2" issued by the Minister of State of Kenyan Government in the year 1985 show