( 1 ) LANDLORD Krishan Lal let out his premises to tenant Baslas on an agreed rent of Rs. 250. 00. It is not disputed that the tenant was using a telephone which was in the premises at the time of the lease and that the said telephone was removed from the premises by the landlord on 31st July, 1970. The tenant s plea is that the parties agreed that the landlord should charge only Rs. 175. 00 as rent and that Rs. 75. 00 from the agreed rent were agreed by the landlord to be reduced due to the loss of the telephone facility. The tenant also pleaded that the landlord had deprived him of the use of the rear courtyard and hand pump. The landlord has denied all this. The landlord filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on the ground of misuser of the premises and his own bona fide necessity for residing in them, namely, under clauses (c) and (e) of the proviso to section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

( 2 ) WHEN eviction is claimed by the landlord on any ground other than that referred to in sub-section (1) of section 15 (namely, non-payment of rent) and the tenant contests the claim tor eviction, the Controller (on an application made by the landlord) has