( 1 ) ALL these petitions pertain to rent control proceedings in respect of different tenants of the same building and in all these cases , only ground of bonafide requirement for residence of the landlady and her husband has been set up. It is in the interest of justice that all these petitions are decided by this common judgment because facts in all these cases are similar and question arising on merits are also similar.

( 2 ) PROPERTY No. 4974, Ward No. XII situated at Mata Mandir, Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi is located in a plot measuring 122-6" X 18-8". In this property rooms have been constructed in a row. There are common facilities of latrine and bath available to occupants of various rooms in this property. All the tenants in various rooms are very very old tenants and the rooms are just kuchha kothris and the tenants who come from very lower strata of life have been living in these rooms, some since 30 years and other since 40 years or so, and are paying very petty monthly rent.

( 3 ) CHANDER Bhan, tenant, is occupying first one and a half room which abuts on the main road while Manohar Lal is occupying adjacent one and a half room. Ram Pyari is occupying the next room. These rooms are located on one side of the latrines and bathrooms. On the other side of the latrines and bathrooms, first room is occupied by Birbal and next two rooms are occupited again by Birbal and his son Ramesh. Earlier, one Puran Chand was alleged to be tenant of these rooms, but later on Birbal and Ramesh had been accepted as tenant by the landlady. Banarsi Dass, tenant, is occupying the accommodation comprising of two rooms and a store at the extreme end of the property.

( 4 ) IT appears that by mistake, the map showing the rooms in occupation of Banarsi Dass was filed in eviction case No. 106/81 which was against Ramesh Kumar and his father Birbal and the map which depicted the portion of Ramesh Kumar and Birbal was by mistake filed in Case No. E-104/81 against Banarsi Dass. The office may substitute the plans in the two files.

( 5 ) THE Additional Controller had consolidated the cases NO. E- 102, 105 and 106/81 against tenants, Manohar Lal, Birbal and Ramesh and Birbal and proceedings were recorded in case NO. E- 102/81 and these three cases were decided by the Additional Controller vide his common judgment dated November 11, 1986 and he had passed eviction order against these tenants on the aforesaid ground. Theeviction case NO. E-103/81 was dismissed by the Additional Controller vide his order dated February 9, 1987 giving the finding that as the eviction orders have been passed in respect of the three tenants, the accommodation, which would become available to the landlady in execution of those eviction orders, would be sufficient and suitable for the residence of the landlady and her husband. Similarly, the eviction case No. 104/81 against Banarsi Dass was also dismissed on the same ground. Apart from the case of Chander Bhan. where a plea has been taken by Chander Bhan that he has been let out the demised premises for composite purposes of residence and business, in ail other cases it is not disputed before me that Pushpawati Jain is the landlady/owner of the property in question and premises to all other tenants have been let out for residential purposes only. Eviction case was also brought against Ram Pyari, tenant, which is stated to have been dismissed on some technical ground and the landlady has not filed any revision petition challenging the said order of dismissal. So, Rain Pyari continues to be a tenant in one room in the said house.

( 6 ) THE case of the landlady, as set up in all these petitions, in brief, was that she purehased the property in question vide Sale Deed dated September 6, 1963 and she bonafide requires the said property for her own residence and that of her family members dependent upon her and she does not own any other property in her name in Delhi or anywhere in India. She set up the