The term "family" in Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 must be liberally and broadly construed so as to include near relations of the head of the family. However, a member of the family of a landlord need not be financially dependent on the landlord in order to be considered "dependent" for the purposes of Section 14(1)(e).

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 12th of November 1981 of the Rent Controller whereby she dismissed the eviction petition filed by petitioner/landlord against the respondent/tenant as being without merit.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner/ landlord of premises bearing No. B-7/84, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi. It is a two storeyed building. The father of the petitioner Shri A. K. Dey has been residing on the first floor since 1969 when the Property in question was constructed. However, the ground floor has been let to different tenants from time to time. It was last let to the respondent on 1st January 1979 under an oral agreement of tenancy at Rs. 700. 00 per mensem exclusive of water and electricity charges. On 24th July 1980 the petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent on the ground of bona fide personal requirement falling under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act ) read with section 25b of the Act.

( 3 ) THE petitioner averred that he formed a Joint Hindu Family with his father who is a retired Senior Specialist, Planning Commission and is about 80 years old. However he had been suffering from severe lumbar osteoarthritis with spondy lolisthesis and esteoarthritis of both knees and ankles and so he is unable to walk and climb the stairs and has, therefore, been advised by a panel of doctors of Safdarjang Hospital to live on the ground floor. Even the mother of petitioner, who is about 66 years old, is a patient or arthrities of a serious nature and is unable to walk steadily and ascend the stairs. It was, therefore, contended that the first floor of the premises in question in which the parents of the petitioner had been residing was not suitable for their residence, Further, according to the petitioner, both his parents were dependent on him for residential accommodation, being members of his family and in order to ensure that they were looked after properly he wanted to send his wife over here from Calcutta, where he is presently employed, so that his parents get proper care and comfort in their old age.

( 4 ) AN application was made by the respondent-tenant under Section 25b (4) of the Act for leave to contest. He asserted that the father of the petitioner was not a member of his family, much less he was dependent upon the petitioner for his residence He pointed out that the parents of the petitioner bad been living separately and independently from the very beginning i. e. ever since the father of the petitioner retired from service. Both of them have independent source of income inasmuch as the father of the petitioner apart from being a Government pensioner is getting royalty in respect of a number of books written by him. He is even maintaining a car. He refuted the assertion of the petitioner that his wife would be living at Delhi to look after the care and comforts of the petitioner s parents. It was pointed out that the petitioner had been all along living in Calcutta where he was handsomely employed as a Senior Executive of a private company. Further, according to the respondent, the eviction petition had been filed with the oblique motive to re-let the premises at an enormously higher rent because admittedly the chronic ailments from which the parents of the petitioner are said to be suffering existed evin at the time when the premises in question were let to him i. e. the respondent, and there was no supervening change in the circumstances of the petitioner s family which necessitated requirement of the ground floor premises.

( 5 ) LEAVE to defend was granted to the respondent by the Rent Controller vide his order dated 13th November 1980 on grounds other than that the parents of the petitioner were not members of his family and were not dependent upon him for the purpose of residential accommodation. However, in the written statement filed by the re