( 1 ) THIS is an appeal on behalf of the landlord under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ) directed against the judgment and order dated 8th October, 1974 of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing his application for eviction of the respondents on the grounds mentioned in clauses (b) and (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The Additional Controller by his judgment and order dated 12th April, 1972 had passed an order of eviction under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act in favour of the appellant but had refused eviction of the respondents under section 14 (l) (b) of the Act.

( 2 ) THE eviction application pertains to portions of first floor and second floor of the property at plot No. 43, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The Delhi Improvement Trust (now succeeded by the Delhi Development Authority under Act 61 of 1957) granted on 22nd September, 1940 lease of plots No. 43 and 44, Darya Ganj, Delhi to the appellant and his brothers for a period of 90 years in terms of the lease deed dated 22nd November, 1940 for the erection of a residential house (Ex. AW. 1/3 ). The appellants and his brothers, however, transferred their leasehold rights in plot No. 44, Darya Ganj, Delhi to Shri Ram Narayan in whose favour the Delhi Development Authority executed the lease deed with respect to the said plot No. 44 on 19th March, 1963 (Ex. AW. 1/2 ). A fresh lease deed with respect to plot No. 43 for a period of 90 years from 22nd September, 1940 was executed on 29th October, 1966 between the Delhi Development Authority and the appellant along with his brothers (Ex. AW. I/i ). The terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 22nd November, 1940 and 29th October, 1966 in favour of the appellant and his brothers are identical. It appears that a residential building was constructed on the said plot No. 43, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The appellant s father Shri Brij Behari Tawakley, who was a lawyer, let out the suit premises in 1953 to Kishori Lal Mehra, Advocate, respondent No. 1. There was an oral partition by way of family settlement between the appellant and his brothers in 1961. The suit property under the tenancy of respondent No. 1 was allotted to the appellant. Respondent No. I by a letter dated 28th April, 1961 (Ex. AW. 2/2) was informed that the suit property had been allotted to the appellant. Respondent No. 1 attorned to the appellant and has since then been paying rent of the suit property to the appellant.

( 3 ) THE appellant through his counsel Shri Mohan Lal Chhibber sent a notice dated 28th September, 1967 to respondent No. I terminating his tenancy. The said notice was admittedly duly served upon him He was required to hand over the vacant possession of the premises up to 13th November, 1967. Finding no response from respondent No. I, the appellant on 18th December, 1967 filed the eviction application, out of which this second appeal has arisen, under clauses (b) and (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The appellant alleges that the premises were let for residential purposes to respondent No. 1, that he is the owner thereof, that he requires the premises for the residence of himself and family members dependent upon him and that he has no other suitable and sufficient accommodation. The appellant further alleges that respondent No. 1 sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of a part of the suit premises without obtaining his consent in writing to Shanti Lal (respondent No. 2 ).

( 4 ) THE respondents, needless to say, contested the eviction proceedings. The Additional Controller after recording evidence held that the tenancy was validly determined; the appellant was owner of the suit premises by virtue of the family settlement in 1961; the premises were let for residence to respondent No. 1 who had used the premises for residence and office from the inception of the tenancy ; the appellant bona fide requires the suit premises for