Mahinder Narain, J. ( 1 ) A petition for eviction of the respondent M/s. Climate Engineering and Maintenance Company from property No. C-66, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi, was filed by Pritam Shah Singh, petitioner, under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, on the ground of personal bona fide requirements. It is asserted that the petitioner Pritam Shah Singh is owner of the said premises, having purchased it at a public auction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Acertificate of sale dated 1st May, 1981 was issued in his favour. The lease-deed was, however, executed in his favour only on 1st May, 1981. ( 2 ) IT is asserted before me, as was done before the Rent Controller, "that M/s. Climate Engineering and Maintenance Company is a sole proprietory concern of Riaz Ahmed, for whose residence the said premises. had been given to him. ( 3 ) THE Rent Controller by her judgment dated 31st May, 1984 has correctly found that a proprietory concern does not have a distinct legal entity from its sole proprietor. The Rent Controller was, therefore right in rejecting the contentions of the respondent that the tenant was Climate Engineering and Maintenance Company. The Rent Controller has also correctly found that the premises has been taken for residential purpose only. ( 4 ) THE plea that provisions of Section 14 (6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act are attracted to this case in as much as the lease-deed in favour of the owner is dated 1st May, 1981, whereas the petition for eviction has been filed on 3rd July, 1981, was also correctly rejected by the Rent Controller for the reason that the ownership relates back to the date of sale, i. e. 10th October, 1954. ( 5 ) IT having been found that the petitioner is the owner of the premises No. C-66, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi, since 10th October, 1954, it having been found that the purpose of letting was residential, the only question which remains is whether the requirement of the petitioner was. bona fide. ( 5 ) IT having been found that the petitioner is the owner of the premises No. C-66, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi, since 10th October, 1954, it having been found that the purpose of letting was residential, the only question which remains is whether the requirement of the petitioner was. bona fide. ( 6 ) IT has been proved before the Rent Controller in evidence that the petitioner had sold his land and living accommodation in Navashahr (Punjab), where he was carrying on agricultural activities, In my view, the trial court is in error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has to give reasons in the court for satisfying the court that the sale at Navashahr of the agricultural land and residential premises was bona fide. That is beyond the scope of the enquiry in the present proceedings which is confined to whether the petitioner is right in saying that his requirement to reside in C 66, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi, is bona fide. ( 7 ) HAVING accepted that the property in Navashahr (Punjab) has been sold; and that the petitioner has no other accommodation apart from C-66, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi, for his residence anywhere in Indian the question of justification of sale, to my mind. is irrelevant, and the Rent Controller has gone wrong in thinking that an explanation of justification for that sale was required in these proceedings. It is stated by the petitioner that he needs premises No. C-66. Nizamuddin east), New Delhi, for residence of himself, his wife and children, and that he has no other reasonable accommodation anywhere in India, that he is residing with his nephew in Delhi, and would not like to continue to do so ( 8 ) THE assertions made by the respondent that the petitioner s children are living in U. S. A. , and that he also does not live in India, have adequately been negated by the statement of the petitioner that he holds an Indian passport. He even today holds an Indian passport. In Court I have been shown the passport issued to the petitioner. This passport bears No. E-262548, and has been issued by the Indian Vice-Consul. San Fransisco on 11th July, 1986. This passport also records that it is valid till 24th May, 1991. He even today holds an Indian passport. In Court I have been shown the passport issued to the petitioner. This passport bears No. E-262548, and has been issued by the Indian Vice-Consul. San Fransisco on 11th July, 1986. This passport also records that it is valid till 24th May, 1991. This passport further records that Pritam Shah Singh had earlier held passport No. K-86892 dated 25th May, 1976, which was issued at Delhi. Another passport has been shown in Court, which relates to Amrit Kaur. This is issued by the Indian Vice-Consul, San Fransisco on 2nd April, 1987, and is valid till 28th June, 1992. This passport also records that the previous passport issued was bearing No. L-710816 dated 29th June, 1977, and was issued at Chandigarh. The passport of the petitioner indicates that the petitioner landed in Delhi on 2nd May, 1987. It is obvious that the petitioner has come to India on an Indian passport. He needs a place for his residence. There is no reason to disbelieve him that he needs the premises Nu. C-66, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi for his residence. ( 9 ) MR. Maheshwar Dayal, counsel for the petitioner, has referred to a judgment reported as 27 (1985) DLT 417 == 1985 R. L. R. 333 (Usha Sales Ltd. v. Mrs. Mohini Nayar ). In that case the landlady was living and teaching in England, and had made an assertion in the petition for eviction filed by her, that she wanted to return and live in her house. In that case, the petition for eviction was decreed. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the petitioner is living in India as Indian citizen, holding even Indian passport. It is the house of the petitioner at C-66, Nizamaddin (. East), New Delhi, where he wants to live, and is entitled to do so. His petition for eviction says that he and his wife want to live in that house,and it seems to me that the Rent Controller was in error in coming to the conclusion, which she has with regard to there being no bona fide requirement for the premises. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, in set aside the order of the Rent Controller, and allow the petition for eviction filed by the petitioner. In. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, in set aside the order of the Rent Controller, and allow the petition for eviction filed by the petitioner. In. accordance with Section 14 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, six months time is granted to the tenant to vacate the premises. No order as to costs. ( 12 ) THIS revision petition had been on the list since 21st July, 1987. No one has appeared for the respondent. Today a request is made that as the counsel has gone to hospital, the matter should not be heard. I do not think this is sufficient reason for non-appearance as some other counsel could have been briefed in the matter.