S A SATSANGI Vs. PREM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This revision petition assails an order dated 25.9.2000 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by whlch the respondent's petition was allowed and an eviction order under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) was passed.

(2.) . I have heard Sh. V.B. Andley, Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sh. V.K. Makhija, Sr . Advocate, for the respondent. I have gone through the Trial Court records also.

(3.) . The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is a tenant inrespect of two rooms, kitchen, WC, common portion of the varandha/ bath on the ground floor of Premises No. 71-F, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The respondent-landlord claimed eviction on the ground that he bonafide required the said premises for his and his family's residential use. According to respondent-landlord his family consisted or himself, his wife and two sons who were of marriageable age at the time of the filing of the petition. It is admitted that during pendency of proceedings both the sons of the respondent-landlord have been married and now they have one child each. The respondent-landlord averred that he and his family were in possession of one drawing room, one dining room and two bed rooms on the first floor and two rooms on the ground floor one of which was study and the other a garrage besides one store in the Mezzanine floor. The respondent-landlorld, who was a Senior Executive working as Chief of the Project in Housing Urban Development Corporation, claimed that he had no other suitable residential accommodation and the portion available with him was not at all sufficient for him and his Family. He also claimed that he had no room for guests nor he had any proper drawing room. He also pleaded that he had no room for a domestic servant. During the pendency of the proceedings both the sons of the respondent- landlord have been married and as such, the present requirement of accommodation for the respondent and his family is claimed to be far more than it was at the time of the filing of the petition.