R C GUPTA Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will also dispose of C.R. No. 208 of 983 as both these cases were consolidated by the Additional Rent Controller and were disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner-landlord filed a petition for eviction under sections 4(1)(b) and 14(1)(e) read with section 95-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for ;eviction of the respondent. A similar petition under section l4(l)(e) was filed n the second case on the same grounds. It was alleged in the petition that the Kpetitioner is the owner/landlord of the premises in dispute. The premises in dispute were let out for residential purposes and are required bona fide by the )etitioner for occupation as a residence for himself and for the residence of his family members dependent on him. It was further alleged that the petitioner loes not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation. The petitioner retired as Under Secretary to the Govement of India on 31st March, 1978 and was residing in Government accommodation which was allotted to him while in service and which he will have to vacate shortly, lt was further pleaded that the accommodation available in the disputed premises of four rooms was not enough considering the status and standard of living of the petitioner and his son. The petitioner had with him T.V., Refrigerator, Sofa lining table and a steel almirah besides other articles. The petitioner's son was also a man of status being an Engineer and was living with him. The petitioner son was about 25 years of age and his marrige was being deferred due to paucity of accommodation. The petitioner gave his requirement as one drawing room, one dining room, two bed rooms, one meditation room, one study room and one visitors room besides a room for servant and driver, and other amenities.

(3.) The petitions were contested by the tenants. It was pleaded in the written-statement that the petitioner had much more accommodation available to him than the one mentioned by him and his requirements were not bona fide. It was further pleaded that the requirements given by the petitioner are Fanciful and whimsical. According to the respondents the petitioner had i family of himself and his wife and his son was not living with him. The petitoner only wanted to sell the house after getting it vacated and had no intention to live in the disputed premises.