Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The appellant also stated that the flat in question was let out to the respondent for the purpose of residence.
He further stated that his elder son got married on 21.7.1998 and that he required one room for himself and his wife, one room for his son and his family, one drawing room and one study room, one worship room and one guest room.
The said authority held that the appellant cannot be companypelled to occupy the property of his wife.
151 of 2002 of the respondent was allowed and the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 19th October, 2001 directing eviction of the tenant from the premises bearing flat No.
Aggrieved, the tenant respondent field a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution which was treated as a Revision Petition under Section 25 B 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and that Revision was allowed by the High Court by the impugned order.
The learned Additional Rent Controller, Karkardooma, Delhi by the order dated 19.10.2001 allowed the petition holding that there is bona fide need of the appellant and his family members.
The appellant filed a petition under Section 14 1 e of the Delhi Rent Control Act against his tenant Ansuiya, the respondent herein.
Markandey Katju, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated 7.7.2003 by which the Civil Miscellaneous Main Petition No.
