( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition on behalf of the landlord under the proviso to Section 25d (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ) directed against the order of the Additional Controller dated 8th January, 1979 dismissing his application under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act for the eviction of the respondents.

( 2 ) ON 2nd September, 1976 the petitioner filed the eviction application against the respondents with respect to a garage in Property No. 5024, Plot No. 7b, ragunath Sadan , Netaji Subhash Marg. Delhi alleging that the garage in suit was let for parking a car, that the same is bona fide required by him, who is the owner, for parking his Fiat Car No. DHA 475, that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation for parking his car. The petitioner has been living on the first floor of the suit property. The petition was tried under the summary procedure detailed in Chapter IIIA of the Act. The respondents filed an application for leave to contest but the same was dismissed on 18th November, 1976 by the Additional Controller and an order of eviction was passed. The respondents filed revision under Section 25b (8) of the Act (C. R. No. 366 of 1977) in this court which was accepted on 22nd August, 1977 and they were granted leave to contest on the question whether the suit premis were let out to them for residential purposes. The matter was remanded. The respondents thereafter filed the written statement in terms of this court s order dated 22nd August, 1977. The respondents in their written statement pleaded that the garage was let out to a commercial concern dealing with wholesale commercial business of manufacture and distribution of Bidis having its Head Office at Sagar (Madhya Pradesh), that it was let out for commercial purposes, that the garage was not let for residential purposes and has never been used as such, that the garage has been used for parking the various cars/vehicles belonging to it. It is further pleaded that the parking of a car is not a residential purpose and the fact that the garage is situated in a residential area would not be relevant for determining the letting purpose. The petitioner in his replication pleaded that the garage in question was let out to the respondents for parking their private car and not for parking the commercial vehicles in connection with their business. It was further pleaded that the garage was taken for the parking of the car of the General Manager of the respondents who had been living since 1954 in the same vicinity where the garage is situated. The petitioner further pleaded that the garage is attached to the residential flats forming part of the building and is situated in residential area, that in terms of the lease deed between the Delhi Improvement Trust and the predecessor of the petitioner relating to the plot of the property in suit, the garage could not be let out or used for purposes other than parking a private car, as the garage is attached to the residential flats.

( 3 ) AS already stated, the only question for determination in this revision petition is whether the garage, premises in suit, was let out for residential purposes. Both the parties have not raised any other question for determination under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act.

( 4 ) ANANT Ram Jain, General Manager of the respondents in his deposition admits that he has been living in Darya Ganj, i. e. , near the garage in suit when the same was taken on rent by the respondents, that he is still residing in that area, that the garage was taken on rent for parking the passenger car and that he has no garage for parking his personal car. The petitioner deposes that the garage has been used for parking domestic car, that it was never used for commercial vehicle or business van and that the premises are residential. He also proves a copy of the lease deed dated 22nd December, 1939 entered into between the Delhi Improvement Trust and the prede