Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The abovementioned revision petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the “Act”) has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 13th December, 2011 passed by the learned RC whereby the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner was rejected in the eviction petition preferred by the respondent, mainly, on the ground that the respondent is the owner of the demised premises and bonafidely require the premises for his own residence and has no other alternative accommodation. Thus, as per the learned RC, the respondent’s case falls within the ambit of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The brief facts leading up to the passing of the impugned order and consequently the present petition are enunciated as under:

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the tenant of the respondent in the suit property situated at A-14, Ground Floor, NDSE-II, New Delhi-110049.

3. The said property which consists of three bedrooms, one drawing room, one kitchen, two bathrooms, and including verandah, front lawn, parking place and back courtyard (hereinafter referred to as the “Demised Property”) was given on lease to the petitioner for residential purposes.

4. The tenancy was created on 15th November, 1983.

5. At the time of filing of the eviction petition, the case of the respondent was that he along with his father, Late Sh. Kewal Krishan Jassal had executed an agreement with the petitioner whereby the demised premises was given on lease to the petitioner for the residential purposes only and for no other purposes. After the sad demise of the respondent’s father on 17th September, 1989, the premises became the sole property of the respondent pursuant to Deed of Family Settlement dated 11th May, 2007 executed between the legal representatives of late Sh. Kewal Krishan Jasal. The mutation of the said property was also effected in the name of the respondent by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide Mutation Order dated 30th April, 2010.

6. It has been the case of the respondent in the eviction petition that the respondent is 64 years of age and is suffering from serious ailments, i.e. a chronic skin disease called Plaque Psoriasis and is under the care of, and receiving ongoing treatment from Royal Victoria Infirmary Hospital in the United Kingdom. As part of the treatment for this disease, respondent is receiving UVB Phototherapy under which he is exposed to ultra violate radiation from artificial sunlight sources. The respondent is also suffering from Psoriatic Arthritis, as a result of which he has joint pains in his hands, wrists, feet and legs due to the cold climatic conditions in the United Kingdom. He is undergoing the treatment for this disease from Rheumatology Department of the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, since 2002. The respondent has been advised that the best therapy for Plaque Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis is to have maximum exposure to natural sunlight and living in a warmer region like India. He has been strongly advised by doctors to shift to a warmer region on account of the abovementioned ailments.

7. It has also been stated in the eviction petition that Prof. N.J. Reynolds, Consultant Dermatologist at New Castle upon Tyne Hospitals, has recommended the respondent to shift to India for the treatment. Besides him, Dr. P.N. Platt, Consultant Rheumatologist at the New Castle upon Tyne Hospitals, has also recommended to respondent to shift to warmer climatic conditions and has advised him to shift back to India. The respondent would be undergoing the phototherapy treatment for the fourth time. On account of his illness, he has decided to shift to India and stay in the premises which is owned by him. Thus, the respondent is in bonafide requirement of the premises and has no alternative residential accommodation to stay in India. On account of the nature of the disease and the treatment, the respondent would be requ