( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 25b (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act the petitioner is seeking the eviction of the respondenttenant, the petitioner s application under section 14 (1 ) (e) read with Section 25b of the Act having been dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

( 2 ) THE respondent is the tenant of the first floor of 6, Pusa Road, New Delhi which is admittedly owned by the petitioner. These premises were let out to the respondent for residence. On 31st January, 1977 the present eviction petition was filed on the ground that the accommodation was required bona fide by the petitioner-company for allotment to its employees for use as residence on licence basis and there was no other suitable accommodation available with the company.

( 3 ) ON an affidavit having been filed by the respondent leave to contest was granted. The respondent in his written statement raised a number of contentions. The main contentions raised by the respondent, and which were accepted by the Additional Rent Controller, were that the provisions of Section 14 (l) (e) were not applicable when premises are required by a limited company for its employees and secondly the petitioner did not require the premises in question bona fide for its employees. In support of its case the petitioner examined one Shri Radha Krishan and the respondent examined himself. The Additional Rent Controller formulated the following points for determination in the case :

"1. Whether the petitioner is owner of the premises ? 2. Whether the petition is maintainable by the petitioner ? 3. Whether the petitioner requires the premises bona fide ? 4. Whether the petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation ?"

( 4 ) THE trial court held that the petitioner was the owner of the premises. With regard to point No. 2 the trial court came to the conclusion that on a correct interpretation of Section 14 (l) (e) the said provision was not available to a company and the same could be invoked only by natural persons. With regard to the other two points the trial court came to the conclusion that the premises were not required bona fide by the petitioner. The eviction petition was accordingly dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 29th November, 1979.

( 5 ) THE first contention which has been raised before me by Mr. Sethi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the provisions of Section 14 (l) (a) could be invoked by the petitioner in the present case. His contention is that a landlord in Section 2 (e) of the Act means any person who is entitled to receive rent. The word person would include a corporate body. He has further submitted that Section 22 of the Act is an addition to the remedy which is available to a landlord under Section 14.

( 6 ) THE two relevant provisions which have to be construed in this case are Section 14 (1) (e) and Section 22. Section 14 (l) (e) reads as under :-

" (E) that the premises let out for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. "section 22 reads as under :-

"22. Where the landlord in respect of any premises is any company or other body corporate or any local authority or any public institution and the premises are required for the use of employees of such landlord or in the case of a public institution, for the furtherance of its activities, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 or any other iaw, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by such landlord, place the landlord in vacant possession of such premises by evicting the tenant and every other person who may be in occupation thereof, if the Controller is satisfied (a) that the tenant to whom su