Vijender Jain ( 1 ) BY a separate order I have disposed of CR No. 612/1998. Boththe cases pertain to same premises. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition by theadditional Rent Controller, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Eviction petition was filed against the respondents under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhirent Control Act (for short drc Act ). According to the petitioner, one room was letout to the respondent on 8. 9. 1981 @ Rs. 190. 00 per month on the first floor. It is the aseof the petitioner that on 7. 3. 1982 a Verandah was also let out to the respondent-Somnath Ghosh and rent. from Rs. 190. 00 was increased to Rs. 290. 00. Respondent did notmake the payment of rent after February, 1983. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT-SORN Nath Ghosh filed a suit on 31. 3. 1983 claiming that he was thetenant not only in respect of one room and verandah but also another room in whichshobha Ghosh was a tenant. In the said proceedings, Sub-Judge held that "the suitpremises is wrongly described by the plaintiff. He is tenant of only one room andverandah at the rate of Rs. 290. 00 per month. " That suit was dismissed by the Sub-Judgeon 21. 1. 1986. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the suit, respondent-Som Nath Ghoshpreferred an appeal which was also dismissed. ( 3 ) NOT satisfied respondent-Som Nath Ghosh filed an application for fixation ofstandard rent claiming that standard rent of the premises should be fixed at Rs. 5. 00 permonth. In the said application for fixation of standard, rent in spite of the fact that Somnath Ghosh s own suit whereby he claimed that entire first floor of the premises inquestion under his tenancy was negatived by the Civil Court, yet he maintained thesame in the new application for fixation of standard rent that the entire first floor wasunder his tenancy. That application was also dismissed. Mr. J. C. Mahindoo, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent, has stated that appeal against the said order isstill pending before the Rent Control Tribunal. ( 4 ) MR. That application was also dismissed. Mr. J. C. Mahindoo, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent, has stated that appeal against the said order isstill pending before the Rent Control Tribunal. ( 4 ) MR. Mahindroo has contended that in view of the testimony of AW-1, whohimself has stated in the cross-examination that the premises in question was used bythe respondent for composite purposes right from the inception of tenancy, nothingmore was required by the Additional Rent Controller to go into other evidenceproduced by the petitioner. Mr. Mahindroo has further contended that in view of thesurvey report of the House-tax Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhiwhere the house-tax was levied on the basis of commercial user, the finding with regardto the purpose of letting by the Additional Rent Controller cannot be disputed. Mr. Mahindroo has also contended that in view of the testimony of AW-I that there wassome writing which he admitted in the cross-examination and that writing having notbeen filed in the Court, adverse inference was to be drawn against the petitioner. Hehas contended that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona-fide as during thependency of the petition, two additional rooms were constructed by the petitioner onthe ground floor and on that aspect of the statement of the respondent, no crossexamination has been conducted by the petitioner. He has further contended thatpremises were let out in 1981 and the petition on the ground of bona fide requirementwas filed in 1984 when there was no change in the circumstances and, therefore, thepetition was filed mala fide. Mr. Mahindroo has further contended that property issituated in commercial area and the same is not required by the petitioner, who hasotherwise converted two rooms on the ground floor as shops during the pendency ofthe petition. It was stated so by the respondent in his deposition and no crossexamination on this score also has been conducted by the petitioner. ( 5 ) I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learnedcounsel appearing for both the parties. Paragraph-11 of the impugned order passedby the Additional Rent Controller deals with the statement of AW-I, who stated thatright from the inception of the tenancy, the premises were used for composite purposes. Purpose of letting and its user are neither synonymous nor interchangeable words. Bothcontain different meanings. Paragraph-11 of the impugned order passedby the Additional Rent Controller deals with the statement of AW-I, who stated thatright from the inception of the tenancy, the premises were used for composite purposes. Purpose of letting and its user are neither synonymous nor interchangeable words. Bothcontain different meanings. Can it be said that the purpose of letting was composite inview of the receipts, which have been brought on record by the respondent himself ?a material document, which could have clinched the whole issue, was the counter-foilof first rent receipt dated 8. 9. 1981, which was brought on record by the petitioner andwhich bears the signature of the respondent in Bengali. He has signed that receipt asa tenant in which it is specifically mentioned that one room on the first "reehaishee". For the reasons best known to the Additional Rent Controller, this has not been takeninto consideration at all. It was also to be taken into consideration that the premises inquestion were situated at the first floor and it was in narrow lane at Beadonpura, Karolbagh, New Delhi. Therefore, only on the basis of survey report of the Municipalcorporation of Delhi showing that the house tax was levied for commercial user, thefinding of the Additional Rent Controller is not tenable. Premises may be used by atenant, after the same having been let out for residential purposes, for commercialpurposes and when survey is done by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on the basisof the user of the premises. Municipal Corporation of Delhi may impose tax on theproperty for commercial usage but that will not change the purpose of letting. In thecross-examination of AW 1 on the basis of deposition that the premises were used bythe respondent for commercial purpose, the Additional Rent Controller has returnedthe finding that the purpose of letting was composite but in the same cross-examinationthe petitioner has stated that the premises was let out for residential purposes and,therefore, I hold that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller for the purpose ofletting suffers from infirmity on the basis of the record which was brought before theadditional Rent Controller. ( 6 ) WITH regard to the bona fide requirement of the petitioner, it is not disputed thatthe petitioner requires one room for himself and his wife, petitioner has got fourchildren from ages 10 to 23 years. ( 6 ) WITH regard to the bona fide requirement of the petitioner, it is not disputed thatthe petitioner requires one room for himself and his wife, petitioner has got fourchildren from ages 10 to 23 years. The ages of the sons are 10 and 23 years whereasdaughters are 13 years and 18 years. All the children require separate rooms for theirresidence. Requirement of a guest room cannot be termed to be unreasonable. Theaccommodation available on the ground floor, as per the site plan filed by the petitioner,consists of two rooms of 10 feet x 8 feet and 14 feet x 8 feet. Even if during the pendencyof the proceedings Verandah on the ground floor has been converted into a room, stillthe requirement fell short even after taking into consideration the identical accommodation available on the second floor of the property in question. I set aside the orderof the Additional Rent Controller and pass an order of eviction against the respondent,however, the execution proceedings shall not be initiated for a period of six monthsfrom the date of this order. Revision petition is allowed accordingly.