The landlord is the best judge of his own residential requirement, and the Court cannot dictate to him the mode and manner in which he should live.

( 1 ) THISPETITIONISDIRECTEDAGAINSTTHEJUDGRNENTDATED November 2,1994 passed by Shri R. K. Gauba, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the application of eviction of the petitioner under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) THE petition was filed on July 11,1986 and summons under Schedule III of the Act were issued. Leave to defend was granted vide order dated November 12, 1986 and, as a consequence, the respondent filed written statement and subsequently amended the written statement by way of an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC which was allowed.

( 3 ) THE suit premises were handed over to the respondent by way of a licence agreement dated March 1,1975 and the respondent was to pay Rs. 850. 00 per month as licence fee. Subsequently this arrangement was converted into lease agreement by which the rental fixed was Rs. 900. 00 per month exclusive of electrici ty and water charges. Petitioners 2 and 3 are sons of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners live in their ancestral house in Village Basant Nagar which is a rural area and is alleged to be quite close to the tenanted premises. Petitioner No. 1 is a retired Government servant while petitioners 2 and 3 are in Government service. The petitioners made the plea that the suit property was jointly owned by all of them as a H. U. F. of which petitioner No. 1 is the Karta. It was alleged that premises was let out to the respondent for residential purposes only. The petitioners are in occupation of two rooms in House No. 47, Village Basant Nagar and four rooms in House No. 47-B in the same village. It is stated that all the six rooms are dark and dingy without proper ventilation and that both the houses do not have kitchen and toilet facilities and are unfit for human occupation and, therefore, unsuitable and insufficient for the petitioners requirement as well as need of the members of the family dependent on them.

( 4 ) IT is alleged that the size of the family has increased over the years and there are grown up members. The family of petitioner No. 2 comprises of himself, his wife, one daughter aged 14 years, one son aged 20 years, second son aged 13 years and third son aged 7 years with another daughter who has since been married. The family of petitioner No. 3 is stated to compromise of himself, his wife, one son aged 10 years, one daughter aged 7 years and another daughter aged 3 years. The petitioners allege that they have good status in the society and require the suit premises bona fide for residence of themselves and for family and there is no other reasonable, suitable accommodation available for the members. The respondent who has continuously resided in the premises from 1975 filed a written statement alleging that the petitioners have not disclosed the extent of accommodation available with them. The title to the property was also denied and it was claimed that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and petitioners 2 and 3. The suit premises were let out for residential and commercial purposes as the tenancy was not created with effect from March 1, 1975 but in 1977 when the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 900. 00 per month. It was, however, stated that no writing was effected at the time of creation of the tenancy. The plea that the property belonged to HUF of which petitioner No. 1 was Karta was also denied. The respondent further denied that the family of the petitioners consisted of the members alleged in the petition or that the petitioners have taken any loan of Rs. 18,000. 00 which had to be repaid at the time of letting out. The ground of bona fide need was denied and it was stated that the petitioners filed the petition with ulterior motive.

( 5 ) THE Additional Rent Controller appraised the evidence on record and held that petitioner No. 1 alone was the owner of the suit property and petitioners 2 and 3 did not have any share or title thereto. This fin