The requirement of accommodation for domestic servants can be treated as the requirement of the members of the family for the purpose of section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been filed by a tenant whose eviction has been ordered from a small loom described as a servant quarter and an open court-yard in a bungalow of Hanuman Road, New Delhi by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, on the ground that the respondents-landlords bona fide required the suit premises as a residence for themselves and the members of their families.

( 2 ) THE respondents had purchased bungalow No. 49 on Hanuman Road, New Delhi in 1958. At the time of purchase ey got vacant possession of the entire bungalow except a small room described as a servant quarter and an open Court-yard which was in occupation of the appellant who claimed to have been in possession of the said portion of the property for the last 30 to 35 years, as according to him his father was an employee of the previous owner. The respondents who were Joint owners of the said bungalow with their father (since deceased) started living in the bungalow immediately after it was purchased by them. On the evidence that has been accepted by both the Courts below, the respondents' family consisted of 18 or 19 members. Although the bungalow appears to be a fairly commodious one, the respondents sought eviction of the appellant on the ground that the accommodation available to them was not sufficient to meet their requirements. Learned Additional Kent Controller however came to the conclusion that the respondents had no need for any further accommodation and that as such the requirements of section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, had not been satisfied.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the Additional Rent Controller, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal who on a consideration of the entire evidence, differed from the conclusion reached by the Addition Rent Controller and held that the respondents were entitled to evict the appellant on the ground of personal bonafide requirement under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

( 4 ) BEFORE me, Mr. H. S. Dhir, learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the judgment of the Kent Control Tribunal on the ground that in arriving at his conclusion about the bona fide requirements of the respondents' family the learned Tribunal had taken into account the necessity of providing accomm dation for the domestic servants of the family. He further urged that according to section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, it was only the requirements of the dependent members of the family which could be taken into account and as such the provision of accommodation for servants could not be treated as the requirement of the members of the family because the servants could not be treated as members of the family. I am afraid, Mr. Dhir is doing less than justice to the learned Tribunal when he says that he has equated the requirement of the servants with the requirement of the members of the family. What the. learned Tribunal has said, may better be reproduced in his own words : -

"for a family of this status the keeping of domestic servants and employees may appear to be a necessity and their requirements could beurged as the requirements of the family of the landlords and as long as the servants would be occupying the quarter as a mere licensee of the landlords it cannot be said that the quarter would not be occupied by the landlords or their family. "

( 5 ) IT does not need much argument to convince any one that in affluent house hold the keeping of domestic servants is regarded more or less a necessity, in a bungalow with servants quarters,. and if the bungalow has servants quarters attached, to it, the servants have to live in those quarters. The occupation of the servants quarters by the servants is in such circustances the requirement of the family and not of the servants themselves. Having regard to the financial and social status of the respondents' family, the necessity of keeping domestic servants appears to be too obvio