( 1 ) THE petitioner filed the present eviction petition on the ground contained in clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondent tot his eviction from premises No. 3/15,vikram Vihar, lajpat Nagar-IV, New- Delhi. The petitioner purchased the property vide a duly registered sale deed dated 15/12/1980. The petitioner is residing on the first floor of the premises while the respondent tenant occupies the ground floor. The petitioner filed a site plan of the tenancy premises which is Ex. AW 3/3. Though the respondent disputed the site plan yet the respondent has admitted in the written statement that the tenancy premises consists of two rooms, one kitchen, one bath and W. C. alongwith front and back courtyards. The accommodation available with the petitioner landlord on the first floor of the property is almost similar consisting of two rooms and kitchen, bath, W. C. There are two balconies on the first floor on the front side as well as backside which the petitioner has covered for purposes of protection from sun and rain. The width of the balconies is about 3 ft. .

( 2 ) THE premises was let out to the respondent in the year 1976 by its erstwhile owner. The petitioner purchased the property in December 1980. At the time of the sale of the property in favour of the petitioner the erstwhile owner issued a letter of atornment dated 5th December 1980, Ex. A-1/r-1, informing the tenant that the property had been sold to the present petitioner and in future rent be paid to the petitioner. Thereafter since January 1981 the respondent started paying rent to the petitioner. The present eviction petition was filed on 5th September 1986 on the ground that the accommodation available with the petitioner in property was not suffi- cient for requirement of the petitioner and his family and, therefore, the tenant should be directed to vacate the portion in his tenancy. The petitioner s family consists of himself, his wife and three children. At the lime of filing of the petition the age of the children of the petitioner was: son - 16 years, two daughters (twins) - 14 years. According to the petitioner all his children were studying in Delhi at the time of filing of the petition. The case of the petitioner as set out in the eviction petition is that he was employed and getting a salary of about Rs. 5,000. 00 per month whereas his wife who was employed as a teacher was getting a salary of about Rs. 2400. 00 per month. The petitioner claiming to be a man of status sought accommodation to live comfortably alongwith members of his family. According to the petitioner at least one bed room was required for the petitioner and his wife. One bed room was required for his son and at least one bed room is required for his both daughters. Besides this the petitioner required to have a drawing-cum-dining room and study. Therefore, the petitioner set up a case for at least 5 rooms.

( 3 ) IN the written statement the tenant denied that the petitioner was the owner of the premises though the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. Further according to. the respondent/tenant the children of the petitioner were studying in Punjab and it was not necessary to consider their requirement. Minus the requirement of the children, the petitioner had sufficient accommodation for his and his wife s residence and the case of bona fide requirement was not made out.

( 4 ) THE main defence set up by the tenant was that premises had been let out for residential-clim-commercial purposes and, therefore, the petition for personal bona fide need under clause (e) of the proviso to Sub- section (1) of Section 14 of the Act was not maintainable. According to the tenant his wife had started a business in the name of M/s Nidhi Enterprises and his son was running a firm in the name of M/s R. K. Industrial Appliances at the premises in suit. Both these firms were hav