( 1 ) THE present petition has been filed to impugn the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, date September 11,1985, wherein he rejected the eviction petition of the petitioners from the front portion of premises House No. 67, Ring Road. Lajpat Nagar, III, New Delhi, which was let out to the respondent with effect from June 16, 1973. The premises have been inoccupation of the respondent company and were let out for the residence of the Managing Director of the said Company.

( 2 ) THE application for eviction was filed on September 30, 1980. The petitioners contended that they are in occupation of the rear portion of House No. 67, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi, and are in possession of 3 bed rooms, drawing room and dining room. The family members of the petitioners, at the time of the eviction petition were as follows:

I) Petitioner no. 1 ii) Petitioner no. 2 iii) Petitioner no. 2 s wife iv) Petitioner no. 2 s son v) Petitioner No. 2 s other son vi) Petitioner no. 1 s mother-in-law

( 3 ) PETITIONER no. 2 s grand mother aged about 92 years. It was further submitted in the application that the petitioner no. 1 has four married daughters and another daughter of petitioner no. 1 Mrs. Indira Kapadia died in October, 1971 leaving behind a son aged about 13 years, at the time the eviction petition was filed. The petitioner no. 2 was a Director in the firm M/s Kusum Sahni Private Limited, Okhla Industrial Estate. He, however, has given up his job and is doing his own business. It was stated before me that he has joined the legal profession and is presently enrolled as an advocate.

( 4 ) THE respondents filed an application for leave to defend, under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The detailed affidavit was also filed by the said respondent, inter-alia, slating that the eviction petition was not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled to the relief, as prayed for. The learned Additional Rent Controller, vide order dated August 5,1982, examined the said application and held that the accommodation available with the petitioners was sufficient and reasonable and the requirement of the suit premises cannot be called bonafide, on account of the same being unreasonable. The eviction petition, as a consequence, was summarily dismissed. The petitioners herein felt aggrieved by this order and filed Civil Revision No. 909 of 1982 in this Court. The said petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated February 23,1983, and the impugned order dated August 5,1982, was set aside. The case was sent back to the Additional Rent Controller with a direction to proceed in accordance with law, from the stage of the application for leave to defend. The petition accordingly was dealt with in terms of the High Court order and the Additional Rent Controller rejected the same on September 11, 1985andthesameisnowchallengedbefore this Court.

( 5 ) THE Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the conduct of the petitioners was characterised by progressive attempt to improve upon the case set up in the petition. The only plea in the original petition was that some more bed rooms were required and as soon as the case was received back on remand from the High Court, the petitioners introduced a new ground in their application that a study room was required for petitioner no. 2. It was also stated by the Additional Rent Controller that in the statement, for the first time, petitioner Shri Ashok Sapra submitted that his eldest son was having weak eye sight and was required a specially illuminated room. The other new plea, which was sought to be raised, according to the Additional Rent Controller was that the entire family of the sisters and their children assembled at the house of the petitioners once in a year and they certainly would require more accommodation. The Local Commissioner was also appointed to assess the need of the petition