Mr. K. S. Bhat, J.

( 1 ) THE landlord is the petitioner. He sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (here inafter called the Act) on the ground that he requires additional accommodation and therefore his requirement is a bonafide requirement.

( 2 ) AS usual the respondent tenant opposed the prayer. The Trial Court has accepted the contention of the respondent resulting in the dismissal of the eviction petition. Hence this revision petition.

( 3 ) A few facts are to be noted here. The landlord is also residing in the same building and according to the landlord he is inoccupation of three rooms only. The finding is that his family consists of himself, his wife, 2 major sons, out of whom one was married already and a grown updaughter. The tenanted premises consist of two rooms and there are six members in the family of the tenant. Inview of the growth of the children and the need to provide proper accommodation to all the members the landlord sought eviction of the respondent. The landlord also pleaded that his parents are old and they have come to reside with him, and that he has 5 married sisters who frequently visit him.

( 4 ) IN the course of the proceedings admittedly the mother died. However, there is a dispute whether the father is residing with the landlord or not. According to the respondent, the landlord s father is residing in Kaithal. Haryana. The Trial Court has accepted this assertion of the tenant. The respondent also contended that his wife has been carrying on business in one of the rooms and the lease was taken not only for residential purpose but also for commercial purpose. The Trial Court has accepted the plea of the respondent. Thus on both counts as to the nature of the tenancy and the requirement of the landlord, petitioner was nonsuited. Primarily two questions arise for consideration in this revision petition - (1) whether the premises was let for residential and commercial purposes or not; and (2) whether the petitioner has made out a case that his requirement is a bonafide requirement under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the respondent as R. W. 5 the tenancy came into being in the year 1966 and initially his wife carried on some business in chemicals under the name and style of Jyoti Sales Corporation. This style was altered in March, 1975 and the new concern was referred as Sandeep and Company. The respondent contended that his wife Smt. Saroj Jain is a co-tenant and should have been impleaded.

( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY there is no written lease deed. In the Eviction Petition the petitioner has stated that the premises are residential and the respondent and his family members are residing in thesame (videclauses4and:5oftheform ). There is no dispute that the tenancy premises consist of two rooms and one kitchen. The respondent as R. W. 5 has admitted that there are 6 members in his family. The respondent is employed in a private company. The respondent has produced certain documents to show that his wife has been carrying on business at the address of the premises. But all these documents arc of the years subsequent to the issuance of notice by the petitioneron 15. 5. 1972, (Er. R. W. 5/1 ). In this notice the petitioner had asserted that the respondent was misusing the premises by using the premises for purposes other than it was let out. There is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent sent any reply to this notice asserting that the premises was let out not only for residential purpose but also for commercial purposes. The report of the Sales Tax Officer also indicates that the address of the business of the respondent s wife was different from the premises inquestion. Though the respondent was able to point out from the Income Tax proceedings and a few other documents that atleast after the year 1975 the respondent s wife was showing the address of the premises in question as the address of her business concern. The fact that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document