( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against order of eviction passed by an Additional Rent Controller against the petitioner on 5th March 1981 under clause (e) of proviso to section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) ON 21st December 1978 the respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner who is admittedly in occupation as a tenant of a portion comprising two rooms with common user of courtyard, bath and latrine, with other occupants of the premises bearing No. 84, Bharat Nagar (Mathura Road), New Delhi, under section 14 (l) (e)read with section 25-B of the Act. He averred that he was the owner of the premises in question and he required the same bonafide for residence of himself and other members of his family, and that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. He explained that be was residing at house No. 44, Church Road, Jangpura (Bhogal) New Delhi but the accommodation there was not sufficient for himself and other members of his family who were dependent on him for their residence.

( 3 ) LEAVE to contest was granted to the petitioner as contemplated under section 25-B sub-section (5) of the Act and he filed a written statement, inter alia, contending that the existing accommodation with the respondent-landlord was quite commodious and sufficient for him and rcembers of his family and that he was living there alongwith his family members quite comfortably. He also took up the plea that the premises in question had been let out to him for residential-cum-commercial purposes. He denied that the respondent was owner of the premises in dispute Lastly he contended that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application in as much as the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the locality in which the premises in dispute were situated.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller has vide impugned order found that the respondent was the owner of the premises in question having inherited the same from his deceased father. who was the original owner- landlord under a will. He further found that the existing accommodation with the respondent was inadequate for the residence of the respondent and members of his family who were living with him. He has rejected the plea of want of jurisdiction in the Rent Controller to entertain the eviction petition saying that there was no evidence on record to support the same. Likewise he has also rejected the plea of the petitioner that the letting purpose was residential-cum-commercial. Feeling dis-satisfied the petitioner has come up with this revision petition.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the sole ground that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller with regard to the existing accommodation with the respondent and the same being insufficient for his need is not sustainable having regard to the material on the record. The petitioner moved an application being CM 3029/81 purporting to be under Order XLI, Rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to adduce additional evidence with regard to the actual accommodation in the possession of the respondent in house No. 44, Jangpura (Bhogal ). According to him, he came to know of the extent of actual accommodation with the respondent only on 1st August 1981 and it transpired that the respondent was in possession of three rooms, two verandahs, one lavatory and four bath rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor. The respondent vehemently denied this averment reiterating that he was in possession of only one living room besides, of course, a couple of verandahs. He again vouched for the correctness of the site-plan Ex. Public Witness 2/2 which he had produced in the trial Court as according to him the total accommodation in his occupation at 44, Jangpura (Bhogal) was truly depicted in the said plan. In view of these conflic