( 1 ) RESPONDENTS herein i. e. Smt. Ratna Dave and her two daughters sought eviction of this petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act ). Eviction was sought on the ground that they need the tenanted premises for her Driver and servants. Petitioner was inducted as tenant in respect of two rooms, store, kitchen, varandah and toilet accessable through open stair case (being servant quarter on the first floor above the garrage) of premises bearing No. 67, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000. 00 including electricity and water charges.

( 2 ) THE basic need of the landlady for which eviction was sought had been on the first floor of the main house under her occupation there are three bed rooms, drawing-dinnig, kitchen, bath, launge etc. This residential accommodation and a car garrage on the ground floor is not sufficient for her needs nor for the needs of her daughters. Their dependent domestic servants and drivers cannot be accommodated in the main house. Respondents have four domestic servants and a driver. They have to be accommodated in servant quarters. The old servant who was working with the respondents used to sleep in the stairs. The second servant could not last long with them because no place for living could be provided to him. In the absence of a living space in the house the car driver left the service of the respondents. Respondent No. 1 aged widow needs a Driver to drive her without which facility she cannot do her work. Minimum two rooms are required by her to accommodate the Driver and the servants. She also requires a room to keep old household articles and construction implements which cannot be stored in a small store measuring 4 x 4 adjoining the car garrage. Respondents herein have four servants and one driver but there is no place to accommodate them, hence the petition.

( 3 ) LEAVE sought by the present petitioner was dismissed. By the impugned order, it has been held that no triable issue raised. Aggreived by that order, the petitioner has come up in revision.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to petitioner the respondents No. 2 and 3 have no right in the property in question hence their need cannot be looked into under the Act. Respondents 2 and 3 have no locus standi to seek eviction for their needs or for the need of their servants. Even otherwise respondents 2 and 3 being married daughters having been living with their husbands in the matrimonial homes, hence not dependent on respondent No. 1 for their residence. Whereas respondent No. 1 has got sufficient accommoation for herself on the first floor of the main house. She has only one servant whom as per respondents own showing, accommodation has been provided in the stairs. He is living comfortably. If at all a separate room has to be given to the servant then the room available on the ground floor which is lying vacant and locked can be provided. There being four servants and a driver has been denied by this petitioner. According to petitioner there is only one servant with the respondent who has already been accommodated. Even otherwise if the respondent was in need of any separate room for the servant or the driver, she could not have let out another servant quarter on the second garrage consisting of room set. The said servant quarter on the garrage was earlier in the tenancy of one Mr. E. Dhatigara since 1982 i. e. much after the induction of the present petitioner. She was never interested to accommodate any servants separately. Her intention was to re-let this premises for higher rent. Moreover, one room on the ground floor is lying vacant and locked, the same can be utilised by her for her servant, if any. So far as accommodation on the first floor of the main building is concerned, four rooms are sufficient for the respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are married and happily settled in their matrimonial homes. They do not require any accommodation in this premises.

( 5 ) TH