The interpretation of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, to include the family members of the landlord in the term "himself" for the purpose of determining bonafide requirement.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Addl. Controller, Delhi dated January 21, 1984.

( 2 ) PROPERTY No. 695-696, Double Storey Quarters situated in New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was a Government built property. The President of India vide lease deed dated October 20, 1965 leased this property to Sham Lal Taneja for a period of 99 years commencing from December 12, 1957. Taneja s mother lived on the ground floor of the property bearing No. 696 along with her daughter and son-in-law Jamna Dass Chugh since before the execution of the lease deed. On her death Sham Lal Taneja took his brothar-in law Chugh as his tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 130. 00. On tenant s application standard rent of the ground floor was fixed at Rs. 60. 75 per month by the Addl. Controller. Sham Lal Taneja, sold this property to Trilok Chand Tuteja, the petitioner, by means of sale deed October 22, 1977. Jamna Dass Chugn (the respondent tenant) thus became a tenant under Trilok Chand Tuteja, the petitioner (landlord ).

( 3 ) ON October 21, 1976 the landlord brought a petition for recovery of possession of the said property (no. 696) consisting of two rooms, Kitchen, bath and latrine, front and rear court yard, etc. on the allegation that the premises in dispute had been let out for residential purpose to the respondent and were bonafide required by the landlord, owner thereof, for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family and he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

( 4 ) THE tenant resisted the petition. It was alleged that the premises bad been let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose and he had been using the same for residence as well as business since prior to the creation of this tenancy when he was living there along with her mother-in-law. The cliam of the petitioner was not bonafide inasmuch as he was in possession of premises No. 695, the first floor of this property which had been vacated by its tenant B. K. Aggarwal who had constructed his own house No. D-174, Vivek Vihar and had shifted there.

( 5 ) LEARNED Addl. Controller observed that the previous landlord Sham Lal Taneja, who could be the best witness to tell about the letting purpose was not asked any question by the petitioner to prove the letting purpose ; the tenant had categorically stated that he bad taken the premises on rent for residential- cum- commercial purpose. He found that the tenant bed been publishing his journal CENTEX from the disputed premises since 1965. He congequently held that the letting purpose was residential-cum- commercial. It was further held that the landlord was residing in quarter No. 694, Double Storey, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi. His need, according to his case, arose because his landlady had asked him to vacate the peremises in his tenancy but this fact had not been proved. The landlord did not require more than the accommodation available with him. His need was not genuine and his claim was malafide. With these findings he dismissed the eviction petition.

( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved the landlord has filed the present revision petition.

( 7 ) MR. K. K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the landlord vehenaently assailed the findings of the learned Addl. Controller regarding letting purpose, non-availability of reasonably suitable accommodation and bonafide requirement of the landlord. He contended that the learned Addl. Controller ignored the statement of the previous landlord regarding letting purpose. raised a wrong inference from the nature of the user which was primarily residential and did not take into consideration the nature of the premises, its design and other relevant factors. His further contended that the landlord required accommodation for himself, his wife, three grown up daughters, mother, brother, brother s wife and their two school going children. He was residing in quarter No. 694 consisting of two rooms etc. as a tenant. First floor, i. e. quarter No. 695 containing the