The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the special provisions under Section 14 B and 14c of the Delhi Rent Control Act, emphasizing the rights of retired persons to recover possession of the premises and the bonafide requirement for accommodation.

( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 5. 2. 2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the eviction petition of the petitioner seeking eviction sought on the petitioner was dismissed on the ground under Section 14 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act which entitles the members of the armed forces to recover immediate possession of the premises on his either release from the service or retirement was dismissed, he has preferred this petition.

( 2 ) THE eviction was sought on the ground that the petitioner has retired from the medical wing of Army where he held the post of Director General on 31. 7. 1995 having the rank of Major General.

( 3 ) THE suit preemies were originally owned by petitioner s father, who left behind his wife, the petitioner and his daughter as his LRs and consequently they became the joint owners of the suit property. During the life time of the father of the petitioner, petitioner s sister had started living in the house. Since the petitioner wanted to make additions in the premises in question he required the government loan and to facilitate this the mother and the sister relinquished their share in favour of the petitioner, thereby making him the absolute owner of the property. However, sister of the petitioner continued and till date is continuing residing in the house in question though she shifted subsequently in the barsati floor. Prior to instant eviction petition, petitioner had also filed a petition on the ground of bonafide requirement as contemplated under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of said petition, the petitioner retired from the armed forces and preferred the instant petition under Section 14b of the Act. However, in the proceedings under Section 14 (1) (e) against the tenant on the first floor, the tenant gave an undertaking to vacate the premises on 6. 12. 1996. The said premises were vacated and are still in possession of the petitioner as he occupied the same on its vacation though immediately after the retirement had shifted to barsati floor and shared the accommodation with his sister. The second petition under Section 14 (1) (e) in respect of the ground floor was and is still pending when the instant petition was filed by the petitioner.

( 5 ) PETITION under Section 14b of the Act was dismissed vide impugned order merely on the ground that the sister of the petitioner has no right to live in the barsati floor as her son has acquired accommodation in Hari Nagar and therefore, she should go and stay there. However, the son of the sister of the petitioner is occupying one room set in Hari Nagar.

( 6 ) THE very fact that the sister of the petitioner has been residing in the premises since long and even during life time of the father of the petitioner and the petitioner had been living with her after his retirement when he had no other accommodation in the suit property she has become almost a part and member of the family of the petitioner for the purpose of residence and merely because her son has acquired accommodation in Hari Nagar consisting of one room accommodation does not mean that she should go and live in the place where she has no legal right to stay. Another reason provided by the learned ARC for dismissing the petition was that the petitioner was not able to show that sister and her husband are dependent on him. The first floor accommodation consists of one drawing cum dining room, one bed room and one puja room. The petitioner s family comprises of his wife, married son and son s children and has also one married daughter. Even if it is assumed that the sister of the petitioner and her husband are not members of the family for the purpose of residence still the accommodation is insufficient and unreasonable and not suitable keeping in view his status and the size of the family.

( 7 ) SO much so, the additional requirement of the premises for his married sister who has been living all along in the said house a