The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and the place where he has to live, and it is not open for the court or the tenant to dictate in what manner he should live or where he should live.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10th October 2005 of the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the eviction petition of the petitioner under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed after contest.

2. The eviction petition was filed by the petitioner in respect of premises bearing No.3393/VII, Gali Ibrahim, Jungli Kuan, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi qua premises two rooms, verandah, open courtyard, bath room, latrine and kitchen alleging therein that he needed the premises bonafidely. The petitioner had been working in Bombay Mercantile Corporative Bank. He retired from the said bank on 31st March 1999. His wife, who was a teacher, had also retired. He pleaded that he had decided to lead his retired life in Delhi since he was born, brought up and educated in Delhi. A part of the property in question was in occupation of his sister-in-law and after his retirement, he requested his sister-in-law as well as the respondent herein, to vacate the premises in their respective possession so that he may shift to Delhi. At the time of filing of the eviction petition, he was residing with his wife in Lucknow at the house of his sister. He submitted he required one room as bedroom, a room for entertaining guests, one room for giving tuitions to students by his wife and a store room. He had no issue. He was a man of status.

3. Apart from taking other objections regarding maintainability of the petition, the respondent had submitted that the petitioner had no intention to return to Delhi as the petitioner and his wife had flourishing business in Bombay. The premises in question fell in slums. The petitioner and his wife, being persons of high status, would not live in slum area. The petitioners contention that he wanted to shift to Delhi was baseless. The petitioner had, during his service tenure, never made efforts to come to Delhi even for collecting rent. His job was transferrable but despite that he did not seek a transfer to Delhi.

4. The respondent had also raised issues qua ownership and letting purposes. However, issues of ownership and letting purposes were decided in favour of the petitioner. Regarding bonafide requirement, the trial court came to conclusion that the petitioner does not require the premises for his own use. He retired in Mumbai in 1999. Before or after his retirement, he had not written a letter to the respondent for vacating the suit premises. It is the petitioners own case that he was a man of high status and the property admittedly falls in slums. A man of high status, as that the petitioner, retired as an officer from Bombay Mercantile Bank, could not be expected to live in slum area. There was nothing on record to show that he had any plans to settle in Delhi. While at the time of filing the eviction petition, the petitioner gave his address as that of Lucknow but during his cross examination, he gave his address as that of Mumbai which shows that he had shifted back to Mumbai. The trial court, therefore, dismissed the eviction petition.

5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that it was not for the tenant or for the trial Court to decide whether the petitioner should live in old Delhi area which has been termed by the trial Court as slum. It was for the petitioner to decide whether he would like to live in his own house in old Delhi or not. The terms could not be dictated to the petitioner about his requirement and environment in which he wanted to live. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argued that this Court in a revision petition should not interfere in the conclusions arrived at by the learned ARC since this Court was not sitting as a Court of appeal. The order passed by ARC was within its jurisdiction and ARC has not committed any illegality in dismissing the eviction petition. The finding given by the ARC cannot be interfered by this Court under section 25B (8) of DRC Act.

6. It is settled law that this