Mr. Arun Kumar, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment oflearned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 20/03/1993. The learned Addl. Rent Controller has passed on order of eviction under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhirent Control Act for eviction of the respondents from the premises in question. Thelearned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgment on the followinggrounds:- (a) ownership; (b) purpose of letting; and (c) bona fide requirement. ( 2 ). It is submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish that they are theowners of the premises in question. The husband of petitioner No. 1raghubir Singhwas a lessee with respect to the premises under M/s Kanna Mal Chhanna Mal. Thepetitioner herein was inducted as a tenant by Kuldip Kaur, daughter of Raghubirsingh, in the year 1969-70. ( 3 ). There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases undersection 14 (l) (e ). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants thecourts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises ifnot the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Furtherthese cases under Section 14 (1) (e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to theproperty. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does notclaim the ownership of the premises. He is only a tenant and according to him wasinducted by Kuldip Kaur, daughter of deceased Raghubir Singh. Raghubir Singhheld lease of the premises from Kanna Mal Chhanna Mal. AW 1 Smt. Gurdayal Kaurhas stated that the lease of the property was in the name of her husband Raghubirsingh and after his death she has inherited the same. House tax bill AW 1/2 is in thename of Raghubir Singh. Therefore, I do not find anything to disturb the finding ofthe Court below on this point. ( 4 ). This bring me to the point regarding letting purpose. Tenancy premisesconsists basically one room and the respondent is admittedly residing therein. According to the petitioners the premises was let for residential purpose. However,in the written statement the respondent took the stand that he is doing the businessof repairing of type writers in the name and style of Alok Typewriters. This bring me to the point regarding letting purpose. Tenancy premisesconsists basically one room and the respondent is admittedly residing therein. According to the petitioners the premises was let for residential purpose. However,in the written statement the respondent took the stand that he is doing the businessof repairing of type writers in the name and style of Alok Typewriters. Accordingto the respondent on one side of the room he is doing the said business. It appearsfrom the material on record that at best the respondent might have been doing thetypewriter repair business as hobby or as side income. The one room tenement isbasically meant for the residence of the petitioner and his family. The respondenthas further stated that he started doing this business after the enhancement of rentto Rs. 37. 00 per month. The initial rent was Rs. 35. 00 per month. An increase of Rs. 2. 00 per month would hardly inspire confidence regarding permission being grantedby the owner/landlord to start business in the premises. As per the Explanation tosection 14 (1) (e) Delhi Rent Control Act if the user of the premises is convertedincidentally for commercial purposes also by the tenant without the consent of thelandlord the case would still fall within the said provision. Therefore, even if therespondent started doing typewriter repair work from the premises in suit it cannotbe said to be a case of premises having let out for residential-cum-commercialpurpose. The attack on the finding of the Trial Court in this behalf is, therefore,misconceived and is rejected. ( 5 ). Now we are left with the point regarding personal bona fide need of thepetitioners qua the premises in dispute. Admittedly the petitioners have no otherresidential accommodation in Delhi. Neither any other premises has been suggestedby the tenant nor anything has been shown in this behalf. According to thepetitioners, Gurdayal Kaur alongwith her family members has been residing with"gurdev Singh who is the elder brother of deceased Raghubir Singh. The case of thepetitioners is that they have no source of income in Punjab and, therefore, they wantto settle down in Delhi. Two daughters of Gurdayal Kaur petitioner No. 1 are alreadymarried in Delhi. If the petitioners have no source of income in their village and theywant to settle down in Delhi to make a living, there is nothing wrong in it. For settlingdown in Delhi the petitioners have asked for their own premises. Two daughters of Gurdayal Kaur petitioner No. 1 are alreadymarried in Delhi. If the petitioners have no source of income in their village and theywant to settle down in Delhi to make a living, there is nothing wrong in it. For settlingdown in Delhi the petitioners have asked for their own premises. It is natural thatwhen the petitioners have a place to stay in Delhi of their own why should they livewith relations and at their mercy just to accommodate the tenant who happens tooccupy their premises. Therefore, the challenge to the bona fide requirement of thepetitioners is without any merit. The result is that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference with the judgment of the learned Additional Rent Controller. The revision petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.