C. L. Chaudhary, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 25b of Delhirent Control Act is directed against the judgment dated. 29. 5. 1986 passed byshri B. B. Chaudhary, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed a petition for eviction against the respondentunder Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act,the case pleaded by the petitioner was that the petitioner was residing atjabalpur with his family. The petitioner alongwith the members of his familywanted to shift his residence from Jabalpur to Delhi. It was stated that theywere living at Jabalpur in a tenanted premises and they had no business inolvement left at Jabalpur. The petitioner, M. S. Bindra was a heart-patient andthe medical facilities regarding heart-ailment at Jabalpur were not adequateand the petitioner would have much better facilities at Delhi. The petitionerand the members of his family have business involvements in Delhi. Boththe sons of the petitioner have been married. One son has two children. Theentire house i. e. ground floor and first floor was required for the residence ofthe petitioner and his family. The respondent is a tenant on the first floor. ( 3 ) THE respondent contested. the eviction petition. By judgmentdated 29. 5. 1986 the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. The Additional Rent Controller returned the finding that the businessactivities of the petitioner and his firm M/s. Bindra Civil Engineers andcontractors had not come to an end at Madhya Pradesh. Rather it was quiteclear that the petitioner and his firm were involved in various contractsin Madhya Pradesh and it will take years together to complete those works. The Additional Rent Controller also returned the finding that there wasnothing on the file to draw the conclusion that better medical facilities werenot available to the petitioner at Jabalpur, and the petitioner has not led anyevidence to show that he ever consulted any Doctor in Delhi. It was alsoobserved that there was no convincing evidence to hold that Shri Bindra andhis wife shifted their residence to the ground floor of the property in October,1990. It was also observed that they had no business involvement in/or neardelhi and there was no occasion for Shri Bindra to shift to Delhi. If Mr. It was alsoobserved that there was no convincing evidence to hold that Shri Bindra andhis wife shifted their residence to the ground floor of the property in October,1990. It was also observed that they had no business involvement in/or neardelhi and there was no occasion for Shri Bindra to shift to Delhi. If Mr. Bindra wanted to shift his residence to Delhi for better medical facilities forhis heart-ailment, then spacious accommodation was available to him on thegronnd floor of the house which consisted of one drawing-cum-dining, fourbed rooms and one study room, kitchen, latrine, bath etc. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code being C. M. No. 2530/1989 seeking permission tolead additional evidence. It is alleged in the application that most of thecontracts held by the petitioner firm in Madhya Pradesh have been completed. It is wholly unnecessary for the petitioner or members of his family to stayat Jabalpur in connection with the business activities. It is stated that by thepresent application, the petitioner wishes to bring to the notice of the Courtvarious important events which have taken place in last three years since thejudgment by the Trial Court. The petitioner firm has been awarded a contractat Ghaziabad. That the petitioner has been holding a ration card since 1984itself and separate LPG connection and had been drawing ration for membersof his family. This unfortunately was not brought to the notice of the Trialcourt. The younger son of the petitioner Shri K. S. Bindra has also shifted todelhi in 1988 and is running a separate kitchen in the said premises and hasa separate gas connection and a ration card for. his wife and two sons aged 15years and 12 years who are studying in St. Columba s School, New Delhi,the petitioner and all members of his family have completely shifted to Delhiand none of them is residing at Jabalpur. The accommodation available withthem on the ground floor of the house in suit is only four bed rooms and onedrawing-cum-dining room. kitchen, bathrooms etc. , which is wholly insufficientfor the petitioner, his wife. his two sons, their wives and their four children. The petitioner is heart-patient and is under treatment of Dr, P. P. Verma, aspecialist at New Delhi. The accommodation available withthem on the ground floor of the house in suit is only four bed rooms and onedrawing-cum-dining room. kitchen, bathrooms etc. , which is wholly insufficientfor the petitioner, his wife. his two sons, their wives and their four children. The petitioner is heart-patient and is under treatment of Dr, P. P. Verma, aspecialist at New Delhi. Alongwith this application the petitioner has filednumerous documents-such as copy of the ration card, vouchers of LPG connection, adoption deed, certificates from Dr. P. P. Verma, Bills of Delhigymkhana Club, assessment orders, telephone bills etc. , showing therein thatthe petitioner and his family have shifted to Delhi and they are residing onthe ground floor of the property in question. ( 5 ) THE application is contested on behalf of the respondent. It hasbeen. denied that there has been any change in the circumstances of the petitioner or his family. It has been further denied that the contracts held bythe petitioner s firm at Madhya Pradesh have been completed. The petitionerand his family are still residing at Jabalpur. It has been denied that the petitioner or the members of his family are living at Delhi. The respondentshave not seen any child going to and coming from the School, from the groundfloor of the premises. It has been further denied that the son of the petitioner has adopted two children. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the matter at issue. ( 7 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the subsequentevents which have happened after the judgment was delivered by the Trialcourt may be taken into consideration in order to effectually decide therevision Petition of the petitioner. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the respondent it was contended that the petitionercannot be allowed to lead additional evidence and the documents cannot belooked into. The petitioner, if so advised, can bring out a fresh petition onthe basis of the changed circumstances. ( 9 ) MR. Rohtagi in support of his contention relied upon a judgmentof this Court delivered in the case of Smt. Renu Seth v. M/s. Industrial and Alliedsales (P) Ltd. , C. R. No. 164/1985 decided on 4. 2. 1987. In this case also thelandlady filed a petition for eviction of the tenant which was contested by thetenant. ( 9 ) MR. Rohtagi in support of his contention relied upon a judgmentof this Court delivered in the case of Smt. Renu Seth v. M/s. Industrial and Alliedsales (P) Ltd. , C. R. No. 164/1985 decided on 4. 2. 1987. In this case also thelandlady filed a petition for eviction of the tenant which was contested by thetenant. The case set up by the landlady was that she was living in a rentedhouse at Lucknow and she alongwith her family members wanted to settledown at Delhi to start new business and at Delhi she had no reasonablysuitable accommodation. The petition was dismissed by the Trial Court. Thelandlady filed a revision in the High Court. Alongwith the revision petitionan application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedurewasfiled. In the application it was pleaded that the petitioner alongwith thefamily members have permanently shifted to Delhi. The application underorder 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code was allowed and the case was remanded to the Additional Rent Controller with a direction that an opportunity be given to thelandlady to prove the documents relating to the changed circumstances. ( 10 ) THE other Judgment relied on behalf of the petitioner is the caseof R. B. Kapur v. Manek N. Dastur, 1985 Delhi 257. In this case it was heldthat the subsequent facts pleaded came into existence after the decision by therent Controller. Therefore, it was necessary to find out whether the firstand second floor premises of the suit property had become available to thepetitioner or not. This fact was likely to vitally affect the decision of the caseone way or the other. It was not possible to do substantial justice withoutfinding out the position with regard to first and second floor. The productionof additional evidence would enable the Court to justly pronounce the judgment. There was substantial cause for permitting the admission of additionalevidence. This case was also remanded back to the Rent Controller for recording additional evidence. ( 11 ) 0n behalf of the respondent Mr. Sahai relied upon a judgmentof this Court delivered in the case of Smt. Prakash Kaur v. Smt. Krishan Kanta,delivered in C. R. No. 649/1979 01111. 2. 1981. In this case the landlady fileda petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the petitioner s husband was working in Canal Department of Bhakra in Punjab. Sahai relied upon a judgmentof this Court delivered in the case of Smt. Prakash Kaur v. Smt. Krishan Kanta,delivered in C. R. No. 649/1979 01111. 2. 1981. In this case the landlady fileda petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the petitioner s husband was working in Canal Department of Bhakra in Punjab. He had retiredfrom service and had finally decided to reside in Delhi in his house. All therelatives of the petitioner were mostly residing in Delhi. The petition wascontested by the respondent. After discussing the evidence of the petitionerthe Additional Rent Controller cams to the conclusion that the petitioner hadnot disclosed that her elder son, Jaswant Singh was living in Hissar and wasemployed as a Professor in D. N. College, Hissar. It was also found by therent Controller that the petitioner had not disclosed any specific reason forpreferring to reside in Delhi rather than Hissar. The petitioner filed a Revision Petition in this Court assailing the judgment of the Rent Controller. Alongwith the petition, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 7cpc for taking into consideration subsequent events which had come intoexistence after the decision of the case. Those events were that Jaswantsingh son of the petitioner, who was previously working as Lecturer inzoology at Hissar had been selected by the Kurukshetra University for theaward of Teacher Fellowship under the University Grants Commission Schemeof Faculty Improvement. He had joined at Kurukshetra. Further circumstance mentioned in the application was that the husband of the petitioner hadjoined a job in Delhi. The application was opposed on behalf of the respondent. After discussing the contentions raised in the application, the application was dismissed for the reasons that in case the allegations of the petitionerin the application under Order 7 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code were correct, there was nothingto stop her from filing a fresh petition on the ground of bonafide requirement. The Court also observed that from the record it appeared that the notice issuedto the petitioner even after the alleged employment of the petitioner s husbandwere served on her at Hissar and she had personally received the same. Thetransfer of the elder son of the petitioner also was for a period of three years,out of which 2 years had already expired. ( 12 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. Thetransfer of the elder son of the petitioner also was for a period of three years,out of which 2 years had already expired. ( 12 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. I feel that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justicerequire that the application of the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 should beallowed, By so doing it can shorten the litigation and best attain the ends ofjustice. The evidence which is sought to be led on behalf of the petitioner islikely to vitally affect the decision of the case one way or the other. It can besaid that there is substantial cause for allowing additional evidence. Thepetition for eviction was filed in the year 1977. The petitioner wants toprove certain documents in order to show that he alongwith all the membersof his family is residing on ground floor of the premises. Some of the documents are public documents-such as ration cards and bills of the telephonedepartment but some of the documents are not public documents and thosedocuments have to be proved in accordance with law. I feel that in case thepetitioner is directed to filed a fresh petition of eviction under the changedcircumstances it will not meet the ends of changed circumstances it will notmeet the ends of justice. The petitioner is an old man of about 80 years andis alleged to be suffering from heart-ailment. ( 13 ) IN the result, I allow this application. The judgment of the Trialcourt is set aside and petitioner is permitted to lead additional evidencewhich has been placed on the record of this case. Ofcourse the Rent Controller will permit the respondent to lead evidence in rebuttal. The Trial Court,after recording the additional evidence of the petitioner and the evidence ofthe respondent in rebuttal if any, will decidand the case de novo. Since it is a1977 matter I would like to expedite the trial. The additional Rent Controllerwill decide the matter expeditiously and would dispose of the petition. within9 months. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on12. 3. 1992, who would retain the case himself or would assign to any otheradditional Rent Controller for disposal. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.