The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the landlord's bona fide requirement for the disputed property under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, considering the availability and suitability of alternative accommodation.

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the dismissal of the eviction petition filed by the petitioners, by the court of learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi vide order dated 24.5.20004.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner is the landlady of the respondents in respect of the premises no. F- 61,Radhey Puri, Krishna Nagar, Delhi,(for short “disputed property”) comprising of two rooms, one kitchen , bathroom with a common latrine and common courtyard and common back courtyard at a monthly rent of Rs 500/-. The disputed portion was let out to the respondents in the year 1987 for residential use.

3. It is stated that the family members of the petitioner consists of herself, her husband i.e. petitioner no.2, two married sons namely Praveen Kumar Soni and Sunil Kumar Soni and one divorced daughter Seema, her son Sunil Kumar Soni and his wife Rekha having two sons namely Bharat Soni and Deepanshu; another son Praveen Kumar Soni and his wife Neeru having two children namely Jatin and Ritika; her two daughters namely Seema married with Shri Kewal Gandhi who was divorced in the year 1987, having one major daughter Jyoti.

.4. All family members of the petitioner are residing in small house No.F- 20/17, measuring 100 sq. yds., Krishna Nagar which is less than half kilometer away from the disputed property which is in possession of the respondent. The said house consists of

.two small room set on the ground floor, two small rooms set on the first floor and two small room set on the second floor besides amenities of kitchen, toilet and bathroom. The said six rooms are very short and not suitable for residence of nine adult members and three minor children.

5. There is no separate study room for her grandchildren, separate drawing room and separate pooja room in the property where the petitioner is residing. It is admitted that the petitioners have no other property in Delhi for the use of residence. Her two sons are doing the business in trans yamuna area in the other properties mentioned by the respondent. It is stated that the petitioners want to spend their remaining life with her divorced daughter and her girl in their own house, as it is very difficult to live together in the joint family and their sons are also interested to live separately their independent lives.

6. The trial court while dismissing the eviction petition held on the basis of evidence and the case proved by the petitioner that the petitioners are the owners-landlords of the property in dispute, the property in question was let out for residential purposes only and the premises in question is required by the landlord for the occupation of themselves and other family members dependent upon them.

7. However, the learned trial court has dismissed the eviction petition merely on the reason that the adjoining two rooms which were previously in possession of another tenant namely Sh. Ram Rich Pal Singh which are admittedly in dilapidated condition and without roof, can be treated as an another residential suitable accommodation.

8. The learned trial court further held that there is nothing, which could have prevented the petitioners/landlords to carry out necessary repairs in the vacated portion, which is presently in their control and to make the same into habitable condition.

9. Now it is to be considered as to whether the finding of learned trial court are correct in giving direction to landlord to get necessary repairs in the vacated portion and to make the same into habitable condition in the petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and even if the portion vacated by Shri Ram Rich Pal Singh i.e. two rooms are available with the petitioners with habitable condition the requirement of the petitioner would be sufficient or not. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the written submissions of the parties.

10. It was all