( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the 5th Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the petition of the landlord under Section 14 (!) (e) read with section 25b of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the landlord of the premises No. N-62, Greater Kailash, New Delhi and the respondent is the tenant of the ground floor of the said premises. The petitioner filed a petition for ejectment under section 14 (l) (e) read with section 25b of the Act on the ground of bona fide requirement. It was pleaded that the premises indispute were let in favour of the respondent in January 1970 for residential purpose only. The present accommodation in possession of the petitioner is insufficient and consists of drawing-cum-dining, two bed rooms, store, kitchen, two toilets and a small varandah on back and front on the first floor besides barasati floor which consists of only one room along with latrine-cum bath. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, one son who is married, his wife and their child aged about one year, another son aged about 22 years who is also of marriageable age and whose marriage has been held up due to shortage of accommodation. The petitioner has got one unmarried daughter aged about 18 years who is also a student. The petitioner has also got one married daughter who resides with her husband in Delhi and visits her parents off and on.

( 3 ) THE petition was opposed by the respondent on various grounds. It was pleaded in the written statement that the respondent is a doctor. Previously he was posted in Army Medical Service and before his retirement he took the present premises for his residence as well as for his medical practice. He has been running the clinic in one room of the premises right from the beginning and to the knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner-landlord has never objected to this use because of the agreement with him. It was further pleaded that the accommodation with the landlord on the first and second floor is more than sufficient and suitable for himself and his family members. The petitioner had converted the back varandah situated in the first floor into a regular room in which he had fitted a cooler. It was also stated that the petitioner had two rooms on the second floor and had wrongly described the accommodation in the barasati.

( 4 ) THE parties produced oral evidence before the Add ). Rent Controller. The respondent who appeared as R. W. 1 deposed that at the inception of the tenancy he was posted at Sikkim and he came back from Sikkim in May, 1970 and retired from service w. e. f. 13-11-1970. He further stated that while at Sikkim he had left his family to reside in the premises in dispute and immediately after his retirement he had started his medical practice in the premises. The respondent also deposed that he had told the petitioner that he required the premises in dispute for residence as well as for doing practice therein. He produced a register of patients and stated that the wife and the children of the petitioner were under his treatment in the year 1971 and he had registered himself with the Life Insurance Corporation in 1970 itself. Shri Sardul Singh, an assistant from the office of the Life Insurance Corporation appeared as R. W. 2. He proved the letters Ex. RW2/1 and Ex. RW2/2. These letters are dated 16th and 18th July, 1970 and go to reveal that the respondent was appointed medical examiner for Life Insurance Corporation. anil Kumar R. W. 3 testified that he resides in house No. N-71, Greater Kailash, New Delhi since 1972 and the respondent was his family doctor. He further deposed that the respondent was running clinic in one of the rooms of the premises in dispute. In cross-examination, he stated that in 1972 itself the respondent had treated his mother. Vijayant Singh R. W. 4 also deposed that the respondent was his family doctor since 1971 and stated that his sis