( 1 ) BY this revision petition filed under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the "act"), the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order dated-17th November, 1990 passed by Shri L. D. Malik, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby he has dismissed the application of the petitioner-tenant for leave to contest the suit for eviction and consequently the order of eviction has been passed under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant to be stated for determination of controversy are that on 26. 4. 1988 the landlord (respondent-herein) filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the premes in dispute, i. e. First Floor of House No. D- 21. Hauz Khas, New Delhi, consisting of two bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining, barsati, verandah, kitchen, two W. C. and bath attached, were given on rent to the patitionertenant about 12 or 13 years back on rent of Rs. 1. 000. 00 p. m. , exclusive of water and electricity charges, for residential purposes only. The landlord/respondent is in occupation of two bed rooms besides dining and drawing room on the ground floor of D-21, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.

( 3 ) IN para 18 (a) (i) to (vi) of the petition the landlord has stated that he is 83 years of age and his wife is aged 75 years (at the time of insitution of the suit ). Both the landlord and his wife are not keeping good health as the landlord is a chronic patient of angina and heart trouble and his wife is suffering from palpitation of heart and arthritis. The landlord has no male issue and has only one married daughter, who wants to reside with her husband and two children-son aged 7 years and daughter 2 years- with the landlord as she also has no house of her father, viz. , the landlord for residence, as she wants to look after her old ailing parents. As a matter of fact, the daughter of the landlord with her child moved out of Delhi along with her husband and the respondent-landlord was not prepared to let out these premises on rent but on an assurance and promise on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that he would vacate the premises as and when needed, the premises were let out to the petitioner-tenant on rent of Rs. 1,000. 00. The respondent-landlord has only two bed rooms, dining and drawing room on ground floor of D/21, Hauz Khas and out of it one bed room is being used as Pooja Room by the wife of the respondent-landlord, who is an old pious lady. There is a domestic servant who sleeps in the drawing room and, therefore, there is an acute paucity of accommodation. According to the landlord, at least two more bed rooms are needed for the married daughter of the landlord, one room is required for the domestic servant and at least one room is badly needed for the guest who visits the landlord very frequently since all are residing in Delhi. Therefore, the accommodation now available with the landlord is short by four rooms, which are bonafide required by him. Since the petitioner-tenant has filed to vacate the premises in dispute, the eviction petition on bonafide necessity has been filed by the respondent-londlord.

( 4 ) NOTICE of this eviction petition was served on the petitioner-tenant on 11. 7. . 1989 by registered A. D. post and also on 13. 7. 1989 through court process. In response to the notice, the petitioner-tenant filed an application under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act and other provisions of law seeking leave of the court to contest the eviction suit.

( 5 ) IN the application for leave to contest the eviction petition, it has been stated by the petitioner-tenant that the respondent-landlord does not require the premises in question for his own occupation and for members of his family dependent upon him. The eviction petition filed by him is malafide and is with a view to enhance the rent As a matter of fact, the petitioner-tenant has refused to accede the request for enhancement of the rent to Rs. 2,300. 00 p. m. c