The landlord's need for additional accommodation must be bonafide and not fanciful or malafide. The court will consider factors such as the number of family members, the size and condition of the rooms in their occupation, and the landlord's status and standard of living.

( 1 ) KRISHAN Narain and others sought eviction of two rooms, one verandah, kitchen, bath room and latrine on the first floor of premises bearing flat No. 2, House No. 6079, Block UB-39, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi in occupation of the tenant petitioner herein. The petition was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. Leave to contest by the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) thereby holding that no triable issue had been raised by this petitioner. That the need of this respondent/landlord and bonafide. Aggrieved by this order present revision has been preferred.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the challenge we may have quick glance to the brief facts of the case. The respondent No. 1 and husband of respondent No. 2 were the sons of Shri Sri Narain owner of the premises in question. After his death, respondent No. 1 and the husband of respondent No. 2 alongwith their sisters inherited this property. Sisters of the respondents relinquished their right in favour of the respondent No. 1 and husband of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 with his wife has been residing in two-rooms set on the first floor of the premises in question. He is issueless. Respondent No. 2 with her husband and three married sons had been in occupation of three-room set on the first floor. Three-room set on the first floor is in occupation of respondent No. 2 s married sons. Since the family was growing and they needed more accommodation, therefore, sought additional accommodation. The question of the respondents being the owner landlord of the premises was not in dispute. The purpose of letting was admitted to be residential. So far as number of family members and the accommodation in their occupation was also not in dispute. The fact that sons of respondent No. 2 namely respondents 3,4 and 5 have been living in the premises in question alongwith respondent No. 2 and also when their father Shri Basant Narain was alive was also not in dispute.

( 3 ) IN view of the admitted position, the only point for consideration is whether on account of the extra accommodation needed by the respondent, petitioner raised any triable issue.

( 4 ) I have perused the leave to defend affidavit filed by the petitioner and also the site plan filed by the respondents. At the outset it must be said that the learned ARC considered all the aspects of these facts as well as the law on the point. After considering the same he gave a well reasoned order. Learned ARC has not faulted in any manner. Respondent No. 1 is already in occupation of two-room set on the first floor. Learned ARC in the impugned order considered this fact and concluded that even if additional need of respondent No. 1 ignored still the other respondents need is bonafide. Respondent No. 2 requires one independent room for herself. Her three married sons require two rooms each. Each other married son had one child each. Keeping in view the child and his need, son of the respondent No. 2 required one additional room. One room in each son s possession is not sufficient to accommodate the couple and the child and luggage. This Court in the case of Sulekh Ch. Jain v. Vinesh Ch. Sheth, 1986 RLR page 17 held that the married sons of the landlord are entitled to two rooms each. In the present case three sons are occupying only one room each. They are married having children. No separate accommodation is available for the children who are in the growing age. That apart, plan shows the size of the rooms in their occupation varied from 13. 10" x 8. 10", 13. 10 x 10" and 13. 10 x 9. 7 respectively. The sizes of the rooms are very small. It appears to be difficult to accommodate a husband and wife and their children in the same room. To fit in the luggage as well as children s cot in such a small room must be difficult. They have no separate store available to them to keep their luggage. The learned ARC rightly concluded that the accommodation in their possessions was not sufficient.