D. K. Jain, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, Hardial Singh, is the owner/landlord of the premises bearing No. C-82, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The respondent, capt. K. V. Batra, is the tenant in the said premises under the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed a petition on 22 December 1983 for the eviction of the respondent/tenant under section 14 (1 ) (e) read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act) on the pleas that he is an old person of about 75 years of age, suffering from coronary heart disease with "effort angina ventricular and super ventricular ectopic activity", and that petitioner s wife, aged about 71 years is also suffering from acute depression and is under treatment of Dr. D. Mohan, Associate Professor, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi; he after retirement from service is living in village Jamey Rae district Amritsar where no medical facilities are available; none of his children is living with them in the village; petitioner s one daughter, who is a doctor is living in Delhi; he wants to avail of proper medical facilities available at Delhi and bonafide requires the premises in question for occupation as his residence. ( 3 ) THE eviction petition was opposed by the respondent, denying allegation of bona fide requirement and claiming that the petition was mala fide, filed for ulterior purpose to increase the rent. After evidence, the learned Addl. Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on 04 March 1991 against which the present petition has been filed under section 25b (8) of the Act by the petitioner/landlord, assailing the findings of the Rent Controller as being perverse, contrary to and based on misreading of evidence, ignoring material facts and rejecting oral and documentary evidence adduced, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. ( 4 ) I have gone through the records and have heard learned counsel for the parties who have taken me through the evidence adduced. ( 5 ) IT is common ground that earlier also, the petitioner had filed an eviction petition for his bona fide personal requirement based on the plea of the ailment of his wife, which was dismissed on 06 July 1981. It is not disputed that during the pendency of this eviction petition, petitioner s wife died in the year 1984. ( 5 ) IT is common ground that earlier also, the petitioner had filed an eviction petition for his bona fide personal requirement based on the plea of the ailment of his wife, which was dismissed on 06 July 1981. It is not disputed that during the pendency of this eviction petition, petitioner s wife died in the year 1984. The question for determination, therefore, is whether the premises in question are p73 bona fide required by the petitioner for his residence. A brief resume of the evidence adduced by the parties will help in understanding the matter. ( 6 ) IN support of his case, the petitioner examined Dr. K. S. Reddy, Associate Professor of Cardiology, AIIMS, as AW2 besides himself as AW1. Dr. Reddy stated about ailment of the petitioner, his visits in AIIMS, treatment by Dr. H. S. Wasir, Associate Professorof Cardiology and provedcertificateex. AW2/l issued by Dr. H. S. Wasir dated 02 May 1983, certifying that the petitioner was suffering from coronary heart disease with effort angina ventricular and supraventricular ectopic activity and was advised to stay at a place where medical help could reach him without delay. He also deposed about the petitioner remaining a patient of Dr. H. S. Wasir and of the petitioner s admission in AIIMS on 31 December 1988 as indoor patient in the coronary care unit with acute my ocardial infarction, in a ward under his charge, and about his and Professor Dr. R. Tandon, Head of the Deptt. attending the petitioner; the said hospital course being complicated; the petitioner being discharged on 14 January 1989 and being advised to avoid all forms of strenuous physical exertion and also have a regular medical follow up and report for emergency medical care when required because of chest pain. ( 7 ) THE petitioner as AW1 stated about his retirement as Superintending Engineer from Military Engineering Service in 1967, his living in village Jamey Rae district Arnritsar since then, his getting heart trouble in September 1981, non-availability of medical facilities in the said village, his being rushed to Amritsar and remaining under the treatment of Dr. Malhotra, heart specialist. He also stated about his getting a second heart attack in the year 1983; of his being brought to Delhi by his daughter, his stay in Delhi; his examination and treatment by Dr. Malhotra, heart specialist. He also stated about his getting a second heart attack in the year 1983; of his being brought to Delhi by his daughter, his stay in Delhi; his examination and treatment by Dr. H. S. Wasir and his subsequent visits to Delhi for treatment and stated that he needed the house at Delhi for his residence. Cross-examined, he denied that he wanted to increase the rent or had spoken about it to respondent s wife. Further cross-examined, to produce documentary evidence about the heart ailment in the year 1981, the petitioner produced EX. AX- I and Ex. AX-2 which are ECG reports, opining about the petitioner s heart ailment. He denied the allegation that after the dismissal of his earlier eviction petition he started manupulating the records about his ailment. He admitted that he had agricultural land in village Jamey Rae but there was no medical facility in the village and that after trying at Taran and Anmritsar, he had come to Delhi for treatment. ( 8 ) IN rebuttal, the respondent examined himself as RW-1 and stated that the premises were not bona fide required by the petitioner for his residence and that the proceedings had been launched for increasing the rent. Cross-examined, he admitted that he had never been to the village where the petitioner was living but denied that there were no medical facilities in the village or at Taran Taran. He also denied that the petitioner was a heart patient and remained under treatment at Amritsar and Delhi. Further cross-examined, he expressed ignorance about the petitioner having remained under the treatment of Dr. Wasir or having been advised to live near AIIMS, adding that the petitioner had never told him so. He admitted that the petitioner was 80 years old and had heard that the petitioner had two daughters and a son but had no knowledge that none of them was residing in village Jamey Rai with the petitioner. He could not deny that petitioner s son was living abroad, one daughter in Chandigarh, the other in Delhi and that the petitioner was living in the village all alone. ( 9 ) PETITIONER s evidence, about his suffering from heart trouble, in 1981 and his treatment for it at Arnritsar, supported by oral and documentary evidence, with a blank denial by the respondent is not seriously disputed. ( 9 ) PETITIONER s evidence, about his suffering from heart trouble, in 1981 and his treatment for it at Arnritsar, supported by oral and documentary evidence, with a blank denial by the respondent is not seriously disputed. However, his plea of 1983 ailment and treatment at Delhi at AIIMS and again in 1988 and his admission in AIIMS as an indoor patient is disputed. The said pleas are vouched by the petitioner as (AW-1 ) and is corroborated by Dr. K. S. Reddy, (AW-2), who produced and proved the documents being certificate issued by Dr. Wasir (AW2/1) and the OPD cards (Ex. AW-2/2 to Ex. AW-2/6), which have been rejected by the learned Add ). Rent Controller with the observation that there are "contradictions and irregularities" in the documentary evidence produced, in that the certificate Ex. AW2/l is dated 02 May 1983 while OPD card Ex. AW-2/2 is dated 04 May 1983 and that in the photo copy of the certificate Ex. AW-2/1, the age of the petitioner is mentioned as 25 years while in the original thereof produced by Dr. Reddy, the age has been corrected as to be 75 years, the said documents-do not show that the petitioner suffered from heart attack and had been advised by Dr. Malhotra, who is stated to have treated him from 1981 onwards, at Amritsar to shift to Delhi. It is also observed that the city of Amritsar is only at a distance of about 30 miles from the village of the petitioner where, aswell, he could be properly treated. The learned Addl. Rent Controller has also relied on the pleadings of the parties, the statement of the petitioner and the judgment of the Rent Controller dismissing the petitioner s earlier petition on 06 July 1981 to assume that the present eviction petition was not bona fide and had been filed for the increase in rent. ( 10 ) I am afraid, I do not agree. I have gone through the entire evidence and it appears to me that there is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner has been suffering from left ventricular strain and occasional ventricular extra systoles opined by Dr. Reddy (AW-2) to be angina. This all in common parlance is considered and quoted as a heart attack or heart trouble. I have gone through the entire evidence and it appears to me that there is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner has been suffering from left ventricular strain and occasional ventricular extra systoles opined by Dr. Reddy (AW-2) to be angina. This all in common parlance is considered and quoted as a heart attack or heart trouble. There is no rebuttal to the petitioner s statement of his suffering from the heart disease in 1981 and his treatment by Dr. Malhotra at Amritsar. Rather it has been suggested that the petitioner can well be treated there. Cross-examined on behalf of the respondent and asked to produce documents in support, the petitioner produced documents Ex. AX-1 and Ex. AX-2, which are ECG reports, showing that the petitioner did have some heart trouble. Dr. K. S. Reddy, cross-examined by the respondent on the conclusions marked AB and CD on the documents Ex. AX-I and Ex. AX-2 did state that these did not actually show heart attack but there is evidence of the matter recorded therein. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner did not have some heart problem in 1981 and was treated for it by Dr. Malhotra at Amritsar. The leamed Addl. Rent Controller has completely ignored this established basic fact which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. ( 11 ) THE petitioner s ailment in 1983andthereafter,andhis treatment for it in AIIMS, vouched by the petitioner and Dr. Reddy is supported by documentary evidence in the form of certificate Ex. AW-2/1 and OPD cards Ex. AW-2/2 to Ex. AW-2/6 which do show that the petitioner did suffer from some heart problem and was under treatment at AIIMS. This evidence has been ignored by the learned Rent Controller and, in fact, the whole thrust of the argument of Mr. Sanjiv Kakra, learned counsel for the respondent, has been to highlight the fact that whereas certificate Ex. AW-2/1 isdated02may 1983,the OPD card Ex. AW-2/2 is dated 04 May 1983 and the petitioner himself had stated that he had come to Delhi on 04 May 1983, and to contend that if the petitioner came to Delhi on 04 May 1983 and got the medical aid on 04 May 1983, it is intriguing how the certificate could have been issued on 02 May 1983. AW-2/2 is dated 04 May 1983 and the petitioner himself had stated that he had come to Delhi on 04 May 1983, and to contend that if the petitioner came to Delhi on 04 May 1983 and got the medical aid on 04 May 1983, it is intriguing how the certificate could have been issued on 02 May 1983. He maintains that since the supporting evidence filed with the eviction petition was only a copy of the certificate Ex. AW-2/1, the same could not have been issued on that day, the whole thing is concocted and the stated ailment in 1983 had to be rejected. The learned Addl. Rent Controller has termed the above discrepancies as "contradictions and irregularities" and has rejected the petitioner s evidence both oral and documentary on the plea of petitioner s 1983 ailment and treatment at AIIMS. ( 12 ) IT is true that there are some irregularities, as mentioned above, which at best are unexplained discrepancies but cannot be termed as contradictions as none has been confronted with them and asked to explain, without which these cannot be termed as contradictions. It is possible that there was a typographical mistake in the mention of date 2 May 1983 and age as 25 and if the witness s attention to these oddities had been drawn, these might have been explained. Discrepancies or irregularities do not necessarily demolish testimony, which has to be carefully weighed in arriving at the truth. It is only if the petitioner or Dr. Reddy had been cross-examined on or in the light of the said discrepancies that an adverse inference could be drawn. Merely because there are some discrepancies in the evidence it cannot follow as a matter of law that the entire evidence is to be discarded in all respects. The learned Addl. Rent Controller has gravely erred in terming these discrepancies as contradictions and rejecting the entire documentary and oral evidence on the point. ( 13 ) THE testimony of Dr. K. S. Reddy stating about the petitioner s ailment of angina in 1983, read in the light of petitioner s admission as indoor patient in December 1988 when he suffered heart attack and was attended to by him, go to show that the petitioner had been suffering from heart problem from the year 1981 down to 1988. No suggestion to the contrary was put to the witness. No suggestion to the contrary was put to the witness. This part of his testimony has gone unchallenged. As such, petitioner s suffering from heart ailment in 1983 and his getting treatment at AIIMS, irrespective of the stated discrepancies, cannot be ignored and the documentary evidence regarding treatment at AIIMS in 1983 cannot be held as concocted. With the background of 1981 heart problem and in the light of documentary and oral evidence of his suffering from it again in 1983, the Finding of the learned Rent Controller that the petitioner did not suffer from that problem in 1983anddidnot get treatment in AIIMS therefor is contrary to evidence and cannot be sustained. As already observed, the petitioner again had that problem in a more serious form in the year 1988, as stated by Dr. K. S. Reddy, whose testimony on the point goes unrebutted. There is no good ground to reject his testimony. Mere non-production of documentary evidence about his admission as an indoorpatient in the hospital is no ground to reject the entire testimony especially when his statement has not been challenged in cross-examination. The learned Rent Controller has misread the evidence and drawn inference on wrong assumptions. I fail to see how an old person can be deprived the use of his house at a place where he has some one to look after him and advised to live in avillage all alone, where medical facilities for his ailment do not exist. ( 14 ) ASSUMING if 1983and 1988ailmentswerenotproved,whichit is difficult to hold, the petitioner s need for a house to live in Delhi was to bejudged in the totality of the circumstances which speak for him. The petitioner is over 80 years old, living in a remote village all alone, unattended by any close relations, has had and is suffering from heart problem. It cannot therefore, be said that his requirement of his Delhi house is not bona fide. Even assuming that he had no heart problem, which to me it appears he has, in old age a person does need to be looked after and cared for by a close relation if it can be possible. Obviously, the petitioner does not have this and the medical facility at his village. His son-in-law and daughter are both doctors in Delhi and if he jives in Delhi, he can well be taken care of by them. Obviously, the petitioner does not have this and the medical facility at his village. His son-in-law and daughter are both doctors in Delhi and if he jives in Delhi, he can well be taken care of by them. There is no proof that the eviction petition has been filed for ulterior purpose of increasing rent. A bald and lopsided statement of the respondent on the point carries no conviction. The plea of the respondent on the point remains unsubstantiated. ( 15 ) IN the light of it all, it cannot be said that the petitioner s requirement of his house for self living is not bona fide. ( 16 ) IN view of the discussion above, the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and pass the eviction order against the respondent. However, I grant six months time to the respondent for vacating the premises in question. ( 17 ) THERE will be no order as to costs.