( 1 ) UNDER clause (e)of sub seclion (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) a landlord can recover possession of the premises let out to a tenant provided; (1) be is the owner of the premises; (2) the premises bad been let out for residential purposes only; (3) be bonafide requires the same for his own residence or for the residence of his family members dependent upon him and lastly; (4) he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

( 2 ) IN the year 1985 the landlord in this case namely Mr. B. K. Soni filed an eviction petition under the provisions noticed above against his tenant M/s. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd.) with regard to premises bearing municipal number D-66, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi. Claiming himself to be the owner-landlord of the premises, be alleged that the premises had been let out for residential purpose only and that he bonafide required the same for himself and his family members dependent upon him. As per him his family comprised of himself, his wife, two married sons, one grand child besides a daughter and that he was living in a two room set in premises bearing number E. G. 125,lnderpuri,newdelhiwhichwasjoiiitlyowiicd by his wife and her sister and which, he alleged, was highly insufficient to meet his and his family s requirements.

( 3 ) THE tenant which is the petitioner before me, contested the petition. It denied the ownership of the petitioner though the purpose of letting being residential only was admitted. It was claimed that the landlord had more than sufficient accommodation with him and that the petition had been filed only because his demand for enhanced rent had been turned down.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller holding that-the landlord bad proved his case, allowed the petition and thereby passed an order of eviclion. The tenant, feeling aggrieved by that order has preferred this revision petition.

( 5 ) MR. S. N. MARWAH, Senior Advocate who has appeared for the petitioner, has not challenged the ownership of the respondent. He has also not disputed that the premises had been let out for residential purpose only. He has sought the reversal ofthe impugned order on two grounds. Whereas his first contention is that the requirement of the landlord- respondent is not bonafide, his second ground of attack is that the landlord is already in possession of reasonably suitable, accommmodation. Let me elaborate and come into grip with the contentions raised in the order noted above.

( 6 ) AS regards the first contention, it is argued that the premises were initially let out in the year 1976 on a monthly rent of Rs. 750. 00 and that it was on account of persistent demand by the laidlord that the same was increased to Rs. 900. 00 with effect from May, 1984 and that it was also on account of his greed that the office in possession of the premises for and on behalf of the petitioner company had been paying some rent in cash also and that too withoutreceipt. lt is argued that initially this cash payment was at the rate of Rs. 100. 00 per month which was raised tors. 250. 00 in May, 1978 and later to Rs. 650. 00 and that the landlord had field the petition in April, 1985 only because his demand to increase the unaccounted cash rent from OWc3 Rs. 650. 00 to Rs. 2000. 00 per month had not been acceded to.

( 7 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the version of cash payment as a "concocted story". I lend my voice in support. Excepting the solitary bald statement of Mr. S. Narsimhan, who, I may hasten to mention. , is the employee of the Company and is residing in the premises,and who,it is claimed,bad been actually making those cash payments, there is nothing on the record to support his version. The landlord who has entered into the witness box as PW-1 has denied the allegations. In any case, it is not possible for me to believe that Mr. Narsimban who is n