DEVINDER SINGH PURI Vs. MOHAN LAL MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th November, 1981 of the Additional Controller passing an order of eviction against the petitioner.

(2.) On 1st March, 1979 the respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from Barsati room of Property at G-41, Green Park, New Delhi. The respondent has alleged that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in December, 1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 100.00 exclusive of water and electricity charges. The size of the Barsati room is 15'x 10.' He has alleged that the premises were let for residential purposes and were required bona fide for occupation as a residence for members of his family dependent upon him and that he is the owner of the same. The first floor of the said house is available to the respondent. The ground floor of the said building is with other tenants. The family of the respondent comprises of himself, his wife, and three children. The eldest son of the respondent is a Graduate in Commerce and undergoing a training for Chartered Accountancy Course. The other two children are his daughters studying in 10th and 4th standard. The respondent has pleaded that he and his wife acquire a bed room for themselves that the son requires a separate room for living and studies and it is proposed that the Barsati room in possession of the petitioner would be utilised by him for his living and studies and that the other bed room on the first floor would be utilised by the two daughters. It has also been alleged that the respondent's brother's wife is a widow having no child, that she comes for a long period for medical treatment. The respondent has no other accommodation.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant contested the eviction application. He has pleaded that the respondent has carved out a verandah measuring 10'X14' approximately which can be used as a bed room and as such the respondent does not require any additional accommodation. The family of the respondent is not denied. It has however been denied that the respondent's brother's widow has been residing with him. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings a two room set on the ground floor was vacated by another tenant of the respondent. The petitioner amended the written statement alleging that the requirement of the respondent would be fully met by a portion vacated on the ground floor. The additional Controller by the impugned judgment has held that the respondent was the owner of the premises and the premises were let for residential purpose and that the requirement was bona fide and the respondent has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.