( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 25b (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th November, 1981 of the Additional Controller passing an order of eviction against the petitioner.

( 2 ) ON 1st March, 1979 the respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from Barsati room of Property at G-41, Green Park, New Delhi. The respondent has alleged that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in December, 1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. 00 exclusive of water and electricity charges. The size of the Barsati room is 15 x 10. He has alleged that the premises were let for residential purposes and were required bona fide for occupation as a residence for members of his family dependent upon him and that he is the owner of the same. The first floor of the said house is available to the respondent. The ground floor of the said building is with other tenants. The family of the respondent comprises of himself, his wife, and three children. The eldest son of the respondent is a Graduate in Commerce and undergoing a training for Chartered Accountancy Course. The other two children are his daughters studying in 10th and 4th standard. The respondent has pleaded that he and his wife acquire a bed room for themselves that the son requires a separate room for living and studies and it is proposed that the Barsati room in possession of the petitioner would be utilised by him for his living and studies and that the other bed room on the first floor would be utilised by the two daughters. It has also been alleged that the respondent s brother s wife is a widow having no child, that she comes for a long period for medical treatment. The respondent has no other accommodation.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-tenant contested the eviction application. He has pleaded that the respondent has carved out a verandah measuring 10 x14 approximately which can be used as a bed room and as such the respondent does not require any additional accommodation. The family of the respondent is not denied. It has however been denied that the respondent s brother s widow has been residing with him. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings a two room set on the ground floor was vacated by another tenant of the respondent. The petitioner amended the written statement alleging that the requirement of the respondent would be fully met by a portion vacated on the ground floor. The additional Controller by the impugned judgment has held that the respondent was the owner of the premises and the premises were let for residential purpose and that the requirement was bona fide and the respondent has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged the eviction order on the ground that the verandah on the first floor which was glazed by the respondent is sufficient for the requirement of the respondent and his family members. In other words, he submits that the first floor including the glazed verandah is sufficient for the respondent. Next he submits that during the pendency of the eviction case a two room set on the ground floor was vacated by the tenant in October, 1980 and the respondent did not occupy the same but had let out at enhanced rent. It is admitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent is the owner of the premises in question that the same were let for residential purposes and that the respondent has no other house at Delhi except the suit house.

( 5 ) THE plan of the suit house is Ex. A-1. The first floor consists of two bed room measuring 12 -4" XIO drawing-cum-dining room besides kitchen store and bath. There is also a verandah shown in the plan which has been glazed. This verandah in fact is a circulation space and it cannot be used as a bed room. The size of the verandah appears to 10 x10 . Six doors of various rooms on the first floor open in this verandah, Door of the kitch