A tenant facing eviction under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, may raise triable issues regarding the landlord's possession of alternative accommodation and the dependency of individuals claimed to be part of the landlord's family, warranting a full hearing on the merits.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is tenant in 2nd floor since 1. 12. 68 while landlord is occupying 1st floor and 3rd floor. On 11. 5. 77. landlord sued petitioner for eviction u/s 25-B, of Rent Act on the ground of personal requirement. Para 3 onwards, judgment is ;-

( 2 ) THE landlord in para 18 (a) of the petition alleged that he was previously a tenant in house No 4790, Haus Qazi, Phatak Namak, Delhi and was living there with his wife, his children, brother s widow and sister s son Jagdish Khanna and his family, that after the house in question was built he with his family shifted to the first floor of the house and his brother s widow Parbati Devi and Jagdish Khanna and his family continued to reside in house No. 4790, Hauz Qazi, that on 29th March, 1976 the landlord of house No 4790 Hauz Qazi filed an application for eviction against him and his application was allowed and he vacated the house on 31st December 1976 that Parbati Devi and Jagdish Khanna with his family shifted to reside with him permanently. The landlord in 18 (a) (u) stated as under : (. . . . . . . . .) The landlord alleged that he was in possession of only 3 bed rooms with 3 toilets, 1 drawingcum dining, stores, kitchen, verandah on the first floor of the house and the said accommodation was not sufficient for his family and he did not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation in his possession.

( 3 ) THE tenant filed an application under sub-section (4) of section 25-B for leave to appear and contest the application. Along with the application the tenant filed an affidavit. The tenant in the affidavit denied that Parvati Devi and Jagdish Khanna form part of the family of the landlord. It was also stated that they were not dependent on the landlord. The tenant further pleaded that besides the entire first floor the landlord had also in his possession the whole of the third floor which comprises of 2 rooms, 1 toilet and a large terrace. The tenant further pleaded that since 1969 the landlord had let out three1 times successively the ground floor of house No. A-/158, Safadarjung Enclave. The tenant further pleaded that all the persons mentioned in paragraph 18 (a) (4) had been living in the house A-l/158 before 1st December 1968 when he (tenant) came to occupy the second floor of the said house.

( 4 ) THE landlord in the application did not controvert the allegation regarding his posses- sion of the third floor of the building in dispute.

( 5 ) THE Additional Rent Controller on a consideration of the material before her came to the conclusion that the affidavit filed by the tenant did not disclose such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of the recovery of possession of the premises in dispute. Accordingly, the Additional Rent Controller allowed the petition of the landlord. Against the above order the tenant has come in revision.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the case does raise triable issues which if found in favour of the tenant would result in the dismissal of the petition of the landlord. The landlord had alleged that he was only in possession of the first floor and that accommodation was insufficient for his family. The tenant in reply stated that the landlord was also in possession of the third floor which consisted of 2 rooms, toilet and a big terrace. It was admitted on behalf of the landlord that he is in possession of the entire third floor. On the above pleas the question would arise whether the accommodation in possession of the landlord of the third floor is reasonably suitable for the family of the landlord or not. The determination of the above question would depend upon the evidence that may be produced by the parties. This question cannot be disposed of without affording the tenant reasonable opportunity to prove that there is reasonably suitable accommodation in the possession of the landlord.

( 7 ) THE next important question that, to my mind, arises for d