( 1 ) THESE three civil revisions and one second appeal from order raise a common question of law. This judgment will govern them all.

( 2 ) THE facts of these cases are very much similar. Three separate appli- cations were made by three different landlords for the eviction of their tenants. In two cases out of which C. R. 577 of 1977 and C. R. 279 of 1977 have arisen the ground of ejectment was bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family dependent on him under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of s. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (the Act ). In the third case in which SAO 148 of 1977 and CR 730 of 1977 have been filed the landlord was a Government servant and he claimed eviction of his tenant on the ground that he was required to vacate the premises allotted to him by the Central Government and therefore a right had aiccrued to him to recover immediately possession of the premises let out by him to the tenant.

( 3 ) THE three applications were tried by the Additional Rent Controller under s. 25b of the Act. In each case the tenant filed an affidavit staling th