SHIV CHANDER BHAN Vs. VASDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition was directed against the order of 3rd Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 22nd February, 1983 whereby learned Additional Rent Controller passed an order for eviction against the petitioner ander clause (e) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Retit Control Act.

(2.) The case of the respondent-landlord was that the family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife, two sons aged 23 years and 17 years, three daughters aged 20 years, 18 years and 15 ycars and a daughter-in-law and a grand son. The son of the petitioner aged 17 years and two daughters aged 18 years and 15 years are studying in B.A., Higfer Secondary and 7th class respectively and the whole family of the petitioner landlord has been residing with him in the following accommodation out of the property in dispute : (1) one drawing room and a bath room on the ground floor, (2) one room one store room and a tin shed kitchen on the first floor and (3) one the barsati which has only 21 High walla on three side and open towards the roof of the house having tin sheets roof, as such the same is on pillars and cannot be used as a room for residential purposes and a latrine on the second floor. The aforesaid accommodation was shown in blue colour in the plan attached with the petition. It was also pleaded that the landlord and his family has no other accommodation in their possession except the one mentioned above. The married son has no separate room for himself, wife and the child as bed room and living room and the school going children have no separate study room : that the landlord and his wife have no separate bed room that the income of the landlord and his married on is about Rs. 16,000.00 per annum and his married son is about Rs. annum and the landlord is an Income tax assessee paying income tax.

(3.) I may mention there is no dispute about the respondent being owner-landlord nor there is any dispute about the purposes of letting before this Court. There is also no dispute regarding family member of the landlord. The only dispute centres round to the extent of accommodation available to the landlord. The plea of the tenant in the written statement was that a room shown as store room on the first floor is in fact suitable as a living room and the second plea was that there is a room in occupation of one Smt. Phool Wati and she has vacated that portion and handed over that portion to the landlord.