SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) (ORAL)AN eviction petition was filed by respondents no. 1 to 4/landlords under section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25b of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein-after referred to as the said Act) in respect of premises bearing no. XV/1729, chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi which was alleged to be let out for residential purposes to the petitioner. The extent of tenancy is one room measuring 10 x 12 and a khokha. The landlords claimed eviction on grounds of bonafide requirement for themselves and the members of their family. ( 2 ) THE Additional Rent Controller allowed the petition in terms of the impugned order dated 02. 05. 1977 and the petitioners aggrieved by the same have filed the present revision petition. ( 3 ) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ownership was established by proving the sale deed. Insofar as the question of purpose of letting is concerned, the plea of tenant that the premises were let out both for residential-cum-commercial purposes has been considered. This plea is based on the fact that the tenancy was originally created in favour of Sh. Fauji Ram by kanwar Baldev Singh who was using the premises also for some small business in the knowledge of the landlord and the same was never objected to. After the demise of Sh. Fauji Ram the petitioner was carrying on the same business. The trial court found that the allegations were vague. The petitioner had stated in his testimony that his father was a washerman and was using the suit premises for ironing of clothes. There were no details set out in the written statement and the trial court on the conspectus of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the purpose of letting was residential. No fault can be found with this finding arrived at by the trial court on the basis of the evidence on record. ( 4 ) INSOFAR as the bona fide requirement of the premises is concerned, the trial court has considered the requirement of landlords and their children and has found the accommodation woefully short of the requirement. The landlords have no other alternative residential accommodation. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid, I do not find any erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The landlords have no other alternative residential accommodation. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid, I do not find any erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. ( 6 ) IT may be noticed that the matter was heard at length on 21. 07. 2006 when learned counsel for the petitioner took some time to obtain instructions. This was on account of the fact that learned counsel wanted to confirm whether the petitioner was willing to vacate the tenanted premises on grant of some time. Today a new counsel has put in appearance and states that he has been recently engaged and even the full papers have not been handed over to him. ( 7 ) I consider the conduct of the petitioner most inappropriate since the arguments had almost concluded on the last date. In the middle of the hearing, a new counsel is now sought to be engaged and that too without any appropriate instructions. Dismissed. Order dated 22. 10. 1997 stands vacated.