RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been preferred by the landlord against the order dated 27th April, 2009 of the Additional Rent Controller granting to the respondent/tenant leave to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act.

2. The petition for eviction has been filed with respect to the portion of House No.60, Vinobha Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi in occupation of the respondent/tenant. Besides the respondent/tenant, there were two other tenants also in the remaining portion of the house. It was the case of the petitioner/landlord before the Additional Rent Controller that he had filed the petitions for eviction not only against the respondent/tenant but also against the other two tenants in the house, with a view to have the entire house vacated for his own use. During the course of hearing before this Court, the senior counsel for the petitioner has informed that the applications of the other two tenants for leave to defend had been dismissed by the Additional Rent Controllers; that RC Revision No.68/2008 preferred by one of the other two tenants was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11th November, 2008 and RC Revision No.21/2009 preferred by the other tenant was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1st May, 2009, save that time up to 31st March, 2010 has been granted to the other tenant to vacate the premises.

3. The petitioner, in the petition for eviction claiming to be the owner/landlord of the house has stated that he though born in India, migrated to UK in the year 1966 and was employed as a Senior Conductor in the Department of British Railways and retired there-from on 5th April, 1997; that at the time of filing of the petition, he was 74 years of age and his wife was 66 years of age. It is the case of the petitioner/landlord that his family comprises of four sons and one daughter; that now in his old age he wants to permanently settle in India; that the house aforesaid is the only residential accommodation owned by him; that he is thus forced to take shelter in his relative’s house at Jalandhar, Punjab; that he needs the entire house for occupation of himself and his family members.

4. The respondent/tenant applied for leave to defend denying that the petitioner is the owner and landlord and also averring that the premises had been let out to him for residential-cum-commercial purposes and hence the ground of eviction under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act is not available to the petitioner/landlord; that the requirement of the petitioner/landlord is not bona fide – neither the petitioner nor any of his dependents have any intention to reside in India.

5. The Additional Rent Controller has in the order impugned in this petition dealt with the matter in a very cursory manner. After reproducing the pleadings, arguments and passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Precision Steel and Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal AIR 1982 SC 1518, it has merely been

observed that the respondent/tenant has disputed each and every ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and thus disputed question of fact arise making the respondent/tenant entitled to leave to defend. Though the judgments cited by the petitioner are recorded in the order but there is no reasoning as to why the law laid down therein is not to be applied. Aggrieved there-from the present revision petition has been preferred.

6. The Supreme Court inter alia in Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222 has laid down the scope of the revision petition to this Court. This court is to interfere in revision only when the order of the Controller is found to be not in accordance with law or when the same is perverse and based on a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. Applying the said basis and on the basis of records of the controller copies