( 1 ) THIS second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter called the Act ) is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th February 1978 of the Rent Control Tribun confirming the judgment and order dated 25th September. 1975 and 13th August, 1975 of the Additional Controller whereby an order of eviction was passed against the appellants under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act.

( 2 ) CHHAIL Behari Lal, deceased, one of the tenants in the suit premises was originally the owner-landlord of the suit property bearing Municipal No. 162/ix, Gali Batashan, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. Smt. Sushila Devi Nigam, respondent No. 1 was a tenant in a portion of the ground floor of the sui property. Chhail Behari Lal sold the property to one Thakur Dass vide a sale deed dated 6th February, 1956 with the result that Chhail Behari Lal and other appellants became tenants under Tnakur Dass. Thakur Dass later on sold this property to respondent No. 1-Smt. Sushila Devi Nigam vide the sale deed dated 12th August, 1960 (Ex. A. 2 ). The appellants therefore attorned as tenants under respondent No. I by operation of law. Respondent No. 1 brought an application for eviction of the appellants-tenants on 7th November, 1973 under clauses (c), (e)and (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Eviction order was passed only on the ground covered by clause (e) by the Additional Controller on 25th September, 1975 which was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal, as already stated. learned counsel for the appellants contends that the landlady respondent No. 1 did not plead all the ingredients of clause (e) of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Act, that the eviction application did not disclose any cause of action and as such the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed He further says that evidence led by the respondent-landlady beyond pleadings should not be looked into. To appreciate the objection and its decision it is necessary to narrate some facts. The landlady in her application for eviction alleges that the appellants were tenants under the previous owner Thakur Dass and they became her tenant when she purchased the property with effect from 12th August, 1960, that the appellants executed rent note dated 15th May, 1956 in favour of Thakur Dass. The ground of eviction under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act as mentioned in the eviction petition is worded as follows :

"that the tenanted portion let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the petitioner for use as residence for herself as well as for members of her growing family dependent upon her. The petitioner is the owner of the house in suit and has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation".

( 3 ) THE appellants-tenants in their written statement deny that the premises were let for residential -purposes or that the same are required bona fide by the landlady for use as her residence or for members of her family dependent upon her or that she is the owner of the premises or that she has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation at her disposal. Besides this the appellants plead that the landlady previously purchased House No. 159 Gali Batashan, Chawri Bazar, Delhi adjacent to the suit house in 1954 for Rs. 3,000. 00 and after getting the same vacated for her bona fide requirement sold the same in 1958-59 for Rs. l0,000. 00 , that she desires to sell the suit house at a higher price after getting it vacated with a view to earn profits. The appellants further plead that the landlady is in possession of the whole of the ground floor and a Barsati on the lop floor, therefore, she does not require the suit premises for her own use and that her sons are independent and have got ample accommodation independently at their disposal. The landlady in rejoinder re-asserted her requirement. She admits that she has been in possession of the ground floor and the Barsati floor; she asserts that her