( 1 ) THIS is a landlord s second appeal directed against the judgment dated December 29, 1967 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dismissing his appeal and confirming the Additional Controller s judgment dismissing his eviction petition under clause (e) of section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming the respondent s eviction on the ground that the premises in dispute were required bona fide by him for his own residence and the residence of the members of his family dependent on him, as being the owner thereof, he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

( 2 ) THE premises in dispute were let out to the Respondent 1n November, 1960. A deed of lease Marked c was duly executed and admittedly signed by the parties, clause 8 of which reads as follows :-

"that the said premises shall be used for residential and clinic purpose and the tenant in no way will sublet, assign or part with possession of the same or a part thereof. "

( 3 ) THE appellant alleged that due to certain family circumstances, he had to leave Delhi temporarily and to go Calcutta, when the premises were let to the respondent. His only son Ajit Banerjee had left for U