( 1 ) THIS revision petition is by the petitioner-tenant. He challenges the order of the Rent Controller dated 4th September, 1982, evicting him from the dispute premises and submits that it is not in accordance with law. He contends that the entire approach is erroneous.

( 2 ) THE premises in dispute is the ground floor of house No. S-96, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The owner-landlord is the respondent, Ramji Dass. The tenant is the petitioner I. D. Rajput. He has been a tenant in the said premises since May, 1970. The premises were let out to him fohis residence and are being used for this purpose.

( 3 ) ORIGINALLY, he was inducted under a limited tenancy under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (to be referred to in short as "the Act"), for eleven months at a rental of Rs. 550. 00 per month. After a short while, the rent was increased to Rs. 650. 00 per month. On the expiry of eleven months, the landlord again applied for and obtained an order under section 21 of the Act for creating a limited tenancy for a further period of eleven months at a rental of Rs. 650. 00. Thereafter, permission undersection 21 of the Act was regularly sought and obtained at the expiry of every eleven months until 5th February, 1976. when the Rent Controller refused to grant further permission. The tenant, then, continued in the premises as a regular tenant on a rental of Rs. 800. 00 per month.

( 4 ) ON 17th December, 1979, the landlord filed an application under section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25b of the Act. In the said application he asserted that he required the premises bona fide for his residence and that of the members of his family. He stated therein that he was in occupation of the first and "barsati" floors of S-96, Greater Kailash-I which was not adequate ; further, neither his wife not he kept good health and their ages were 66 and 73 respectively. She was, inter alia, a patient of arthritis and he of gout and they needed to live on the ground floor.

( 5 ) WITH regard to the other members of his family he mentioned that he had four married sons and two married daughters. Though, three of his sons were living and settled abroad, the fourth son Mr. Chaman Prakash and his wife and two daughters aged 13 and 11 years were residing with him. However, his sons settled abroad and his married daughters visited him occasionally.

( 6 ) THE tenant applied for leave to defend. On 24th May, 1980, the landlord s wife died. On 11th July, 1980 leave was refused by Mr. J. D. Kapur. However, that order was subsequently set aside by this court and the tenant was permitted to contest the suit.

( 7 ) THE landlord examined three witnesses. The first two were of a formal nature. The third witness was the landlord, Ramji Dass himself. He also filed a plan of the premises which is Ext. A. W-3/1. This plan indicates that the premises in his occupation on the first floor are almost identical with the premises on the ground floor.

( 8 ) THE tenant has also filed a plan. It is a copy of the sanctioned plan Ext. R. W. 3/1. According to both the plans, there are four rooms on the first floor. The measurements of which are approximately 15 X 12 15 x 12 ,10 x 15 and 13 x21. There is also a kitchen measuring 8x12 two toilets, a lobby, two verandahs as also a balcony. One of the verandahs is glazed. On the second floor, apart from the terrace and toilet, there is a large room measuring 15 x 21 .

( 9 ) THE only real difference between the two plans is with regard to the nomenclature of the rooms. In the plan filed by the landlord Ext. A. W. 3/1, the first two rooms have been shown as bed rooms, the third as a dining room and the fourth room as a living room. However, with regard to the identical accommodation on the ground floor, the first two rooms have been similarly shown as bed rooms, but the third room has been shown as a guest room and the fourth as a living room.

( 10 ) IN the sanctioned plan Ext. R. W. 3/1, the first three r