The Controller has jurisdiction to decide the extent of the premises under tenancy and that the order of eviction could be maintained in so far as the portion on the second floor other than the open space was concerned.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The tenanted premises are in the second floor of the house. The landlord terminated the tenancy by a notice dated February 18, 1976. He made the eviction application on April 16,1976. In the application the tenanted premises were said to be one Barsati with temporary kitchen one open bath-cum-latrine on the second floor which were also shown in red in the plan attached. The portion in red did not include the open space. The ground for eviction was that the landlord required the premises bona fide for residence of himself and the members of his family dependent upon him as the first floor in which the family was residing had become insufficient for their requirement. The tenant filed a written statement on August 25, 1976. He contended that he was a tenant of the entire second floor including the open space and one bath-room on the ground floor which was illegally occupied by the landlord. He also denied that the portion in occupation of the landlord was insufficient for his requirements. Besides this, the accommodation in the ground floor has been falling vacant which he had been renting out meanwhile to several tenants from time to time at higher rent. The only purpose for eviction proceedings was to secure vacant possession and then re-let the premises similarly at higher rent. On September 28) 1976, replication was filed by the landlord saying that the open space on the second floor was never let out and the roof was bring used by this family for the purpose of sleeping and placing their cots and storing other articles. The temporary bath-room on the ground floor was never let to the tenant and it was demolished upon the directions of the Municipal Corporation.

( 2 ) ON September 15, 1977, the tenant filed a suit in the court of the Sub-Judge 1st Glass, Delhi, asking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering the second floor without his permission and also directing him to remove his cots from the second floor. The learnedsub-Judge decreed the suit on October 3, 1978. He held that the tenancy comprised the entire second floor of the suit premise s. On March 26, 1979, the Addl. Controller made an order for possession in the eviction proceedings. He held that the entire second floor was not let out to the tenant. It was pointed out to him that the Sub-Judge had held otherwise. He observed that the order of the Sub-Judge was already under appeal and therefore, no importance could be attached to it. He found that the application was made in good faith. The present accommodation in possession of the landlord consisted of two bed rooms and one drawing-cum-dining room and two closed verandas. The family comprised the landlord, his wife, 3 sons and 4 daughters. Out of the sons, one was in the Army, who often visited him and another son had been transferred from Chandigarh to Delhi. One of the daughters has married. Yet another daughter has been adopted by his sister and has married but both of them often kept on coming. One son and two daughters are studying. The children are growing and marriages of the grown-up sons were to take place in immediate future. The landlord was a well-to-do gazetted officer having all the modern amenities such as TV, fridge, dining table, sofa set etc. The present accommodation was thus short of his genuine requirement. Hence, this revision.

( 3 ) NOW, the findings as to bonafide requirement are findings " fact and there is not much scope for this court to interfere. I agree with the learned Addl. Controller that the 3 rooms will be insufficient for the landlord to meet satisfactorily the requirements of the family with some status. It is for the landlord to choose which portion he likes to keep and therefore, the fact that the landlord is renting out the ground floor to various tenants at various times increasing rent all the time will not affect the bona fide requirement at all. The respondent