Devlnder Gupta ( 1 ) ORDER of eviction passed on 4. 2. 1994 by Shri N. K. Goel. Additional Rent Controller. Delhi allowing respondents petition filed under Sections 14 (i) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and ordering tenants eviction holding that premises are required bonafide by the respondents for their use and occupation is under challenge in this revision. ( 2 ) THE eviction of tenant was sought by the landlords alleging that premises were let out to petitioner No. 1 for residential purpose, which were required bonafide by the landlords for their own occupation and for occupation of the other members of family, dependant upon them. They were not having any other suitable residential accommodation available to them in Delhi. Respondents are residents of NUH, District Gurgaon. For want of residential accommodation, respondent No. 1, a grain merchant having business in Delhi, has to return back everyday to NUH from Delhi. Respondent No. 2 having started business at Delhi under the name and style of M/s Decon Drugs and Pharmaceuticals and having a factory at Samaipur Badli in partnership with one Virender Kumar was also in need of accommodation. In order to avoid great inconvenience of visit to Delhi everyday from Nuh, respondent No. 1 had to perforce to make an arrangment as a licensee of his stay with one of relatives at B-32, C. C. Colony, Delhi. It was also alleged that respondent No. 3 was undergoing graduation course and intended to shift to Delhi for further studies. In this background, the tenants eviction was sought. ( 3 ) ON leave to defend being granted, the petition was taken to trial. Tenants denied that premises were required bonafide for personal use and occupation by the landlords or for the members of their family. It was also denied that the premises were let out for residential purpose. The Controller upheld the bonafides of the need of respondents after holding that the respondents were owner-landlords and premises were let out for residential purpose. This order of eviction is now under challenge by the tenants. ( 4 ) I have gone through the judgment of the learned Additional Rent Controller and I have also heard the learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission, who have taken me through the entire record. This order of eviction is now under challenge by the tenants. ( 4 ) I have gone through the judgment of the learned Additional Rent Controller and I have also heard the learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission, who have taken me through the entire record. ( 5 ) I do not find any ground to interfere in the revision petition or to upset the finding which have been recorded by the Additional Rent Controller. It was held that in view of decision in two earlier suits, namely. Civil Suit No. 62 of 1977 decided on31. 7. 1977 by Shri R. N. Batra, Sub Judge, First Class, Gurgaon and Civil Suit No. 208/74 decided on 20. 8. 1974, respondents-landlords were the joint owners of the property. In view of the admission made by RW 1 Om Parkash, the petitioners witness made during the course of his statement the Additional Rent Controller, rightly held that premises were let out to the petitioners for residential purpose only and were also used as such even from the date of inception of tenancy till date. There is neither any material on record nor brought to my notice justifying interference with these findings recorded by the learned Additional Rent Controller. ( 6 ) ON the question of requirement of the premises by the landlords and their bonafides, the respondents examined AW ltekchandandaw2vinodkumar. It has come in evidence that after filing of the petition for eviction, AW 2, one of the owner-landlords got married and had to shift his residence to the premises owned by him. Even prior to marriage. he was in Delhi. He was also running a motor business under the name and style of Mewat Motors Finance. 17/1l, Pili Kothi,naya Bazar, Delhi and was residing at Paschim Vihar in a rented accommodation. When evidence was led, respondent No. 3 had appeared in the final examination of B. Com. and wanted to do Chartered Accountancy from Delhi. It is also in evidence that respondents were not having any other residential accommodation in Delhi. Even the case of the petitioners has also been that the respondents are carrying on their business at Nun and they have no residential accommodation in Delhi as such their need is not bonafide. and wanted to do Chartered Accountancy from Delhi. It is also in evidence that respondents were not having any other residential accommodation in Delhi. Even the case of the petitioners has also been that the respondents are carrying on their business at Nun and they have no residential accommodation in Delhi as such their need is not bonafide. On the question of business being carried on in Delhi, the statements of AW 1 Tek Chand and AW 2 Vinod have remained unrebutted. There is no counter evidence adduced except by making a simplicitor denial. In view of the bare denial by RW 2 and the positive assertive version of AW 1 and AW 2 and the evasive statement of tenants witness RW 1 that he was not aware if landlords required the premises or not, there is no scope for interference in this revision since the Additional Rent Controller has recorded a finding which is basedon material on record. ( 7 ) IN these circumstances, I do not find any substance in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.