( 1 ) THIS petition by the tenants is directed against the order dated May 20, 1983 made by the Additional Rent Controller, directing their eviction from the premises in dispute.

( 2 ) THE dispute is in respect of a room in House No. 4777, Gali No. 46, Hardhian Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. This room was letout to Tara Chand (predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners) long back on a monthly rent of Rs. 251 -. The respondent landlord sought an eviction of the petitioners from the said room under clause (e) of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control act (for short the Act ).

( 3 ) THE petitioners admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also admitted that the respondent was the owner of the property in dispute. The other requirement, namely that the landlord had no other reasonably though disputed in the written statement was not disputed before me at the time of arguments.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, however vehemently assailed the finding of the learned Additional Rent Controller regarding the letting purpose. It was contended that the room had been letout for commercial purpose and was being used as such since the inception of the tenancy and the finding of the learned Addl. Controller was erroneous,

( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal the petitioner moved two applications (C. M. 2784/83 and C. M. 3560/83) under Rule 27 of Order 41 Code of Civil Procedure for permission to produce additional evidence. The additional evidence consisted of the survey report made by the officers of the Municipal Corporation in 1972 showing that this room was in possession of Kanwal Band and various receipts purported to have been issued by the landlord in which the room in question has been described as a shop.

( 6 ) TO prove that the premises had been letotit for residential purpose the landlord had produced only oral, evidence consisting of his own statement and the statement of one Premi. Both of them had staled that the room had been letout for residential purpose and was being used as such. . . . . . . . . . . .

( 7 ) IN rebuttal Smt. Dharma, one of the petitioners and two witnesses had stated that the room had been let out for commercial purpose and was being used as such, namely for carrying on the business of the musical band, since the inception of the tenancy. It was admitted by the landlord that there was no water or electric connection in the premises in dispute. The tenants had not been given the facility of latrine or bath room. It was also admitted that the premises were situated on the main road. There was a garage near the room in dispute. In front of the room there was a shop of gas lights and a ration shop. He, however, also stated that he himself was living in one of the rooms in this building without any of these facilities.

( 8 ) ON appreciation of the evidence as it stands, additional evidence was required for enabling the. court to pronounce judgment Satisfactory to the mind of the court. Several receipts purported to have been- is-ued by She landlord have been filed by the tenants. It" it was proved that these receipts wers issued by the landlord Sen-it-may clinch the issue. Interest of justice requires that this additional evidence was allowed.

( 9 ) IT may be added here that Tara Chand, the original tenant, had been mardered. The petitioners were illiterate persons and could not lay their hands to these important documents. This is, also a- substantial cause for allowing additional evidence.

( 10 ) THE petitioners no doubt had moved an application under Section 13 (2) Code of Civil Procedure which had been allowed by the learned Additional Controller. But they had not traced these documents within that time. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case I allow the additional evidence as prayed.

( 11 ) IN conclusion, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned order and instead remit the cas