A landlord seeking eviction of a tenant under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 must plead and prove that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition under section 25b (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ) is directed against the judgment and order dated February 28, 1977 of the first Additional Controller, Delhi dismissing her petition for eviction on the ground covered by clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. It has arisen in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE petitioner as owner landlady let out first floor of property No. 152, Golf Links, New Delhi to the respondent in July 1960 on a monthly rent of Rs. 650. 00, besides electricity and water charges. On November 10,1975 she sent a notice through her counsel alleging that she was the owner landlady of the premises which were required by her bona fide for use and occupation of herself and members of her family dependent upon her and that she had no other suitable accommodation. Finding no response, on January 3, 1976 she filed the eviction petition under section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25b of the Act. The ground of eviction as worded in para 18 (a) is as under:-

"1. The petitioner is a qualified M. B. B. S. doctor and is at present residing in one room temporarily vacated by the ground floor tenant for her personal use. She has got barsati with her which is at present lying closed with her luggage. Half of the luggage is still lying at Jhansi, where the petitioner s husband, Col. , N. K. Khanna was last posted. 2. The petitioner who is the owner/landlady of the premises in question requires the same for her personal needs and the needs other other members of the family dependant upon her. 3. Col. N. K. Khanna, husband of the petitioner, retired as Asstt. Director Medical Services on 31. 1. 1975. The last pay drawn by Co1. N. K. Khanna was Rs. 2,750. 00. p. m. and he had always been living in an accomomdation comprising of 8 rooms and 4 bath rooms. Col. Khanna retired on attaining the superannuation age. He is a qualified Doctor and is an eye specialist. Shri Khanna desires to start his practice alongwith the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has got one married daughter. Smt. Neelam Lal, who is married to Cost Accountant Shri Madan Lal and is now posted at Calcutta. She often visits her mother at Delhi. The petitioner has got one son, Naresh Kumar Khanna, who is a qualified Engineer and M. B. A. and is at present residing at Atlanta in the State of Georgia (U. S. A. ). He is married and is desirous of living in Delhi with his parents, in the premises in question. According to the petitioner s status and her husband she requires at least 4 bed rooms, one drawing room, one dining room, one kitchen, one pantry and two bath rooms and two guest rooms. 5. The petitioner has been living with a great difficulty for the past one year in one room, which is not fit for her status to occupy. She alongwith her husband. Col. Khanna, is not able to practise her profession even though the house in question is planned in such a way that the first floor is meant for residence and the ground floor has been designed to enable the petitioner to maintain her clinic for her medical practice. 6. The petitioner and her husband are both ostracized on account of living accomodation. This has been and is also adversely affecting their status physically, mentally and financially, 7. Col. N. K Khanna has his widowed mother Smt. Kesra Devi, who is at present residing in Amritsar. She is an old lady and is desirous of staying with her eldest son, Col. Khanna, in Delhi. "

( 3 ) THE respondent in his written statement pleads that eviction application does not disclose a cause of action as the petitioner does not plead that she has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The respondent contested all the allegations made by the petitioner but it is not necessary to narrate them. The Additional Controller by his order dated February 28, 1977 held that the eviction petition did not disclose a cause of action and therefore dismisse