Sultan Singh, J. - (1.) This is a petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, J 958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') directed against the order dated January 8, 1980 of the Additional Controller whereby he refused leave to contest the eviction application and order for eviction of the petitioner under section 14(l)(e) of the Act was passed by him.
(2.) . The respondent landlord filed the eviction application on the grounds mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It reads as under : "Section 14(!)(e): that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation". The landlord is entitled to an order for recovery of possession if he proves the following ingredients of this clause (e) : (i) the premises were let out for residential purposes; (ii) the landlord is the owner of the premises; (iii) the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or any member of his family dependent upon him; (iv) the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
(3.) . The respondent-landlord made the following allegations in paragraph No. 18(a) of his application : "Bona fide necessity. That the premises let for residence are bona fide required by the petitioner for his own use and the members of his family dependent upon him for residential purpose and that he is the owner of the premises and has no other residential accommodation for himself and his wife. The petitioner's wife was in service as a Nurse in the M & CW Centre, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. During service she was allotted accommodation by the Municipal Authorities in the centre itself and since then the petitioner is residing in the said allotted accommodation with his wife. The petitioner's wife, Smt. Sewa Devi, retired from service on 30-4-1974 and, therefore, she has to surrender back [he allotted accommodation to the Muncipal Authorities. Neither the petitioner nor his wife own any other residential property in Delhi for their residence. The property in question is the only property owned by the petitioner where he can accommodate himself and his wife. No other portion in the building is lying vacant for use as a residence by the petitioner. The requirement of the petitioner is urgent and immediate because of the retirement of his wife. The petitioner requested the respondent several times in the past for vacating the premises; but now he has refused to do so despite his promises.";