Santosh Duggal ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against anorder dated 3. 2. 1992 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for leaveto contest the eviction petition, instituted by the respondent/landlord underclause (e) to proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rentcontrol Act, 1958, (for short the Act ), was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE application for leave to contest had been filed, as a readingof the impugned order reveals, accompanied by an affidavit of one T. K. Ramaswamy. It transpired during hearing before the Additional Rent Controller that the said T. K. Ramaswamy did not possess any authority on behalfof the company, (respondent in the petition), to file an affidavit or to takepart in any Court proceedings on behalf of the said Company. On thesefacts, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the view that the application for leave to contest had been filed by a person not duly authorised byor on behalf of the Company, and in the eye of law there was no applicationfor leave to contest, and on this short ground the petitioner in the evictionpetition was entitled to an eviction order, as would be the case under theprovisions of Section 25-B of the Act, to the effect that if after notice of theeviction petition, no leave is sought by the tenant, then eviction order wouldfollow. ( 3 ) IT is not denied even in the revision petition that Shri T. K. Ramaswamy did not hold any authority for the purpose of filing the affidavitor application in the eviction proceedings or to take part in the Court s proceedings, and that the power of attorney in his favour was only in relation tothe business of the Company Counsel for the petitioner has not been able tourge any point to say that the view taken by the Additional Rent Controller waserroneous. All that is being urged is that under the Company Law the actioncould be ratified by subsequent board resolution. It is, however, concededthat till the application for leave to contest came to be disposed of by orderdated 3. 2. 1992, no resolution had been passed by the Board of the petitionercompany, ratifying the act of Shri T. K. Ramaswamy in the matter of filingthe leave to contest application or the affidavit or other acts connected thereto. ( 4 ) MR. 2. 1992, no resolution had been passed by the Board of the petitionercompany, ratifying the act of Shri T. K. Ramaswamy in the matter of filingthe leave to contest application or the affidavit or other acts connected thereto. ( 4 ) MR. Bindra has pointed out that this infirmity was pointed outby him in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner (respondentherein), by way of preliminary objection, as far back as on 21. 2. 1991, whichmeans that even during the pendency of the proceedings till the applicationfor leave to contest was disposed of, no steps were taken to exercise theright of ratification, inspite of the eviction petition having been pending forabout a year thereafter. ( 5 ) THE scope of Section 25-B (8) of the Act is limited only to theexamination of the question as to whether the order passed by the Addlrent Controller is correct, and according to law. In view of the above facts,i do not find any error or infirmity committed by the Additional Rent Controlleron this count. ( 6 ) EVEN on merits, the impugned order reveals that there was nodenial about the fact of the respondent being owner/landlord of thepremises, nor of the fact that the premises had been let out for residential purposes, and were being used as such. The only plea was thatit was not correct for respondent/landlord to say that he did not have sufficient accommodation in his occupation. The Additional Rent Controller hascome to the finding, after comparative assessment of the facts as revealedfrom the averments in the eviction petition or affidavits, that the onlyhouse owned by the landlord was this flat, and that he did not haveany other residential accommodation in Delhi. It was shown on facts thathe was in occupation of hostel accommodation allotted to him by his employer, which consisted of two small rooms, W. C. bath and kitchen; beingflat No. H-54, INA Colony, New Delhi. The members of the petitioner s family, as per impugned order, consisted of himself, his wife andtwo unmarried daughters, aged 21 and 19 years. Besides, it was stated thatthe petitioner has also two married daughters, who were settled in Delhi,and they kept on visiting the petitioner with their husbands and children,and some accommodation is also required for time, when they stay with theparents. Besides, it was stated thatthe petitioner has also two married daughters, who were settled in Delhi,and they kept on visiting the petitioner with their husbands and children,and some accommodation is also required for time, when they stay with theparents. ( 7 ) THE view of this Court has consistently been that in the social set-upof Indian society, it is a reasonable expectation that married daughters, andeven sisters do require some accommodation in the parental home for shortstays on festive occasions or other functions. There was no attempt to showthat the assertion made by the landlord that the hostel accommodation consisted of only two small rooms was not correct. That being so, the learned Addl. Rent Controller rightly held that this accommodation was insufficient andinadequate for the family of the petitioner/landlord (respondent in this revision petition ). The plea of the tenant, that there was no bona fide requirement, and that it was only an attempt to increase the rent was rightlyrejected, on the view that simply at one point of time the landlord had letout the premises, and had sought increase in rent, would not mean that ata subsequent stage when his children grow up or his needs increase, hecannot seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal bona fiderequirement. ( 8 ) I, therefore, do not find any case made out for interference inthe order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller on 3. 2. 1992, dismissing the application for leave to contest, and as a consequence passing theeviction order in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. ( 9 ) I, therefore, find no merits in this revision petition, and dismiss thesame with costs. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 1000. 00. ( 10 ) THE petitioner has already availed of six months in excess of thesix months, provided by law, after passing of the eviction order. I, therefore,grant only one month s time to the petitioner company to vacate the premises and it is directed that the vacant possession of the premises shall behanded over to the respondent/landlord within one month from today, failingwhich the landlord shall be entitled to take out execution.