RADHEY LAL Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control has been filed by the landlord against the order dated 7.1.1985 whereby his petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed the eviction petition and had alleged that he was the owner of the premises in dispute. The premises in dispute had been let for residential purpose only and that the same were required bonafide by the petitioner for his residence and for residence of other members of his family dependent on him. It was pleaded that the family of the petitioner consists of himself, his mother, his wife, one son aged 22 years, two daughters of 9 and 16 years. The son of the petitioner is also employed and is of marriageable age and two daughters of the petitioners are studying in college and school in B.A. 2nd year and 11th class respectively. The accommodation available with the petitioner on the ground floor is one room measuring 9'x8', one kothri measuring 9'x7'. The mazzanine floor accommodation measures 5'x7' and having the height of only 3'. On the first floor, the petitioner has one room measuring 17'x8' and one small room measuring 9'x8' which is being used by two daughters of the petitioner for their study purpose. There is one kitchen measuring 9'x7' and one bath measuring 4'x4'.

(3.) THE learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner was the owner-landlord, the purpose of letting was residential and the petition was not for partial eviction. As such all the preliminary points were found against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. However, on the question of bonafide requirements the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the mother of the petitioner had shifted with the other son and as such her requirement did not exist. As far as the requirement of the other members of the family was concerned, the learned Additional Rent Controller held that since the son of the petitioner had not shifted to the ground floor and was still living with the other members of the family on the first floor, it could easily be said that the accommodation available with the petitioner was enough and no further accommodation was required. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on this ground.