S.C. Jain, J.

1. Record perused. The respondent who is an employee of NCERT filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondent (Petitioner) from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. Summons as prescribed under Schedule III of the Delhi Rent Control Act were issued to the tenant petitioner herein who appeared and filed an application seeking leave to defend. Grounds taken by the petitioner were that the purpose of letting was residential cum commercial and that the respondent landlord did not need the premises in suit bona fide. The Rent Controller did not find any favour with both these pleas taken by the petitioner tenant and ultimately declined the request of the tenant to grant leave to defend and a decree for eviction was passed. Aggrieved this revision petition has been filed.

2. As far as the purpose of letting is concerned, in para 14 of the eviction petition it has been specifically mentioned that the premises were let out to the tenant for residential purpose on 1.7.77 and the tenant had executed a rent note, a copy of which was attached with the eviction petition.

3. This fact has not been specifically denied by the tenant. Moreover, the copy of the rent note shows that the purpose of letting was only residential. This lease deed though not registered can be made use of for collateral purposes to find out the purpose of letting. The Rent Controller has correctly appreciated that the premises were let out for residential purpose. No ground to interfere with this finding of the Rent Controller.

4. Regarding the bona fide requirement, the case of the landlord is, that he being an employee of NCERT was allotted a residential accommodation by his employer. This accommodation admittedly does not belong to the employer of the landlord but belongs to MMTC and MMTC has placed the same at the disposal of the NCERT who in turn allowed the same to the respondent landlord to stay in that accommodation. The case of the landlord respondent herein is that MMTC is compelling his employer i.e. the NCERT to vacate the premises and as result of the same a part of the accommodation has already been handed over to the MMTC by NCERT and therefore in such circumstances the respondent has decided to shift to his own house. The other reason given by the landlord for eviction is that he is also financially loser inasmuch as he is not getting any rent allowance from his employer because of this accommodation and secondly his wife who is a Govt. employee, employed as a teacher in the Delhi Administration is loosing Rs. 450 P.M. as per house rent allowance. Thus in all he is loosing Rs. 1650/- p.m. whereas the income from the rent is Rs. 740/-. These pleas taken by the landlord appealed to the Rent Controller and on that ground the eviction order was passed.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant argued that it is no where stated that the employer of the respondent i.e. NCERT had asked him to vacate the allotted accommodation and financial consideration could not be taken into account while passing the eviction order. The learned Counsel also submitted that his client is even prepared to make good the financial loss of the respondent landlord.

6. I am not in agreement with the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner-landlord in the present circumstances of the case. It is the desire of the landlord to live in his own house which has to be taken into account. There is no mala fide on the part of the landlord in getting the premises vacated. The Addl. Rent Controller has correctly appreciated the law and facts while dismissing the application seeking leave to defend and passing the impugned eviction order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Addl. Rent Controller. There is also no jurisdictional error. No ground to interfere. Dismissed at the admission stage itself.