A LANDLORD IS ENTITLED TO EVICT A TENANT UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (E) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958, IF HE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT HE REQUIRES THE PREMISES BONA FIDE FOR HIS OWN USE AND OCCUPATION.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 25b (8) has been filed by the tenant against the judgment dated 9th March, 1981 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi ordering her eviction on an application having been filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 14 (l) (c ).

( 2 ) THE tenant is in occupation of the front portion of he uilding bearing No. B-7, Anand Niketan, New Delhi. The said portion consists of three bed rooms, one drawing cum-dining room, three bath rooms, one kitchen, one store, lobby and one garage on the ground floor and a terrace and a bath room on the roof of the first floor. The premises were let out with effect from 1st February, 1974 at a monthly rentofrs. looo. 00. The landlord is in occupation of the rear portion of the said house as well as of one garage and two servant quarters on top of the garage.

( 3 ) THE landlord filed an application under Section 14 (1) (e) for eviction of the tenant. It was contended that the premises in dispute were let for residential purposes and the same were required bona fide by the landlord for use and occupation as residence for himself and for members of his family dependant upon him. It was stated that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

( 4 ) SUMMONA were issued and, on the tenant filing an application along with an affidavit for leave to contest, the Additional Rent Controller fay order dated 2. II. 1977 granted the leave prayed for. Thereupon written statement was filed by the tenant. It was, inter alia, contended that the tenancy had not been validly terminated, eviction was sought with regard to part of the premises, the landlord was not the owner of the premises the premises had been let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes, and that the petition had been filed with mala fide intention as the landlord had more accommodation in his occupation than his requirement. It was further stated that the landlord did not require the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation.

( 5 ) THE allegations made in the written statement were denied by the landlord in the replication which he had filed. Thereupon the parties led their respective evidence.

( 6 ) AS already noted, by judgment dated 9th March, 1981 the Additional Rent Controller allowed the eviction application and ordered the eviction of the tenant. The Additional Rent Controller found that the eviction petition had not been filed in respect of a portion of the tenanted premises. He also held that respondent-herein was the owner of the premises. With regard to the purpose of letting, the finding of the Addl. Rent Controller was that the premises in dispute had been let for residential purposes alone. With regard to the allegations of mala fide against the landlord, the Addl. Rent Controller found that the landlord was in possession of two bed rooms in the main building, one garage two small rooms above the garage which had been described as servant quarters with an enclosed verandah. According to the landlord, which version was accepted by the Addl. Rent Controller, the two servant quarters were being occupied by the landlord s son who was using one of them as a sitting room and another as bed room. The garage was stated to be in the occupation of the landlord s unmarried daughters who were studying in Jesus and Mary College, New Delhi. One of the two bed rooms was being used by the landlord and his wife for their sleeping and another room was being used as dining-cum-telephone room. In addition thereto the landlord had a covered space in the verandah which, according to the Rent Controller, could not be used as a living room. The Rent Controller found that though the daughters were occupying the garage and the son was occupying the servant quarters the said accommodation could not be regarded as reasonably suitable for the landlord. The Additional Rent Controller also took into consideration the fact that the landlord had children from his first wife and it wa