ORDER
Vijender Jain, J.
1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the petition of the land-lady. The petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In spite of service of summons, the respondent did not appear before the Additional Rent Controller nor any leave to defend application was filed within the statutory period. However, learned counsel for the respondent says that leave to defend was filed on 10th July, 1998 after the expiry of the statutory period. This is how the Additional Rent Controller has recorded the proceedings dated 13th July, 1988:
“Despite calls. As per the process server both respondents were served on 12th June, 1998 but despite this, neither of them has filed application seeking leave to defend within the statutory period. As per Section 25-B(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the statements made in the application for eviction shall be deemed to have been admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order of eviction.
2. However, on a technical ground that the land-lady has not averred that she needs the premises bona fide for use as residence and that she has no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation as words ‘residential’ has not been pleaded in the eviction petition, Additional Rent Controller, has considered the omission of the word ‘residential’ to be so fatal that he has dismissed the eviction petition.
3. Let me deal with the eviction petition, as filed by the petitioner. In paragraph 4 of the eviction petition against the claim whether the premises are residential or non-residential, it was mentioned in the petition ‘residential’. Even in paragraph 5 of the petition, it was mentioned ‘the premises was let out to the respondent for residential purposes wherein the respondent has been residing’. In paragraph 18, it was mentioned:-
“that the petitioner is owner of the property i.e. ground floor bearing No. 4719-21, Shora Kothi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi by virtue of Sale Deed executed in her favour by the previous owner on 26.7.1988. The respondents are tenants under the petitioner in respect of three rooms with common use of W.C., common bath and common court yard on the ground floor, in property bearing No. 4719-21 for residential `purposes only at monthly rent of Rs. 9.07 excluding other charges.. The petitioner requires the aforesaid tenanted premises for her bona fide use and for her family members dependent upon her as the petitioner has no other sufficient and suitable accommodation available with her for herself and for her family members dependent upon her.”
“At present the petitioner and her family have been residing on First floor of the property No. 4719-21, Shora Kothi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi and on the same floor two married sons of the petitioner have also been residing alongwith their family members, eldest son Rajesh Kumar, his wife, three children Rohit-15 years, Mohit Seth-13 years and Shahil Seth-11 years and second son himself, his wife and their three children aged about 10 years, 4 years and one year respectively. The petitioner’s family and her two sons family mentioned above have been residing on the first floor, having the accommodation of three rooms, drawing room latrine and bath which is totally insufficient and such paucity of accommodation has become miserable. Apart from the said number of the family members, the petitioner has also a daughter (married) who often used to visit and stay.
The petitioner needs the tenanted premises under the respondents for her bona fide requirements and for her family members mentioned above urgently as the petitioner has no other sufficient and suitable accommodation except the said tenanted portion under the respondent.”
4. In view of the specific pleadings by the petitioner that the property in dispute were let out to respondent for residential purposes and petitioner requires the same for her bona fide use coupled with the sentence ‘that the petitioner has no other sufficient and suitable accommodation’ was sufficient to demonstrate the urgency and need for getting the premises vacated. Law is not a mere technically but the Court has to see the substance once the basic requirements of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act i.e. as to for what purpose the property was let out, the petitioner was the owner thereof, the premises are required for accommodation for the petitioner and the members of family of the petitioner have been pleaded and mere non-mentioning of the word ‘residential’ cannot be the ground for non-suiting the petitioner and thus, the impugned order on this account was contrary to the intent of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the purpose for which the Legislature has enacted the said section.
5. Having come to a finding that in spite of service, respondent has not filed any leave to defend application within the statutory period, the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petition on a trivial and technical ground. In Rana Drego Vs. Lal Chand Soni, 1998 RLR 290, the Supreme Court while dealing with a case from Bombay Rent Act dealt in the following terms:
“In the light of the above admitted factual position when the land-lady says that she needs more accommodation for her family members, there is no scope for doubting the reasonableness of the requirement. Further the above circumstances would raise a presumption that the requirement is bona fide also. The tenant has failed to show that the demand for eviction was made for any oblique motive and in the absence of any such evidence, the presumption of bona fides stands un-rebutted”.
6. In view of the above, I set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller and pass a decree of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in relation to the property on the ground floor bearing No. 4719-21, Shora Kohti, Pahar Ganj, Delhi as shown red in the site plan attached with the petition. However, the order of eviction will not be executed for a period of six months.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the civil revision stands disposed of.