JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Petitioner/landlord is aggrieved by an order dated 18th August 2006 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller whereby his eviction under Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) on the ground of bonafide requirement was dismissed.

.2. The respondent herein is the tenant in respect of one bedroom, one drawing room, kitchen WC, independent levatory, bathroom with front courtyard and back verandah on the ground floor of the property bearing number F-26, West Nizamuddin, New Delhi on a month rental of Rs.500/-since 1973. The petitioner submitted that respondent was now not living in the premises and he was living in Ludhiana and only occasionally used to visit the premises and stay there, otherwise the premises was being kept locked by him. About his bonafide requirements, it was submitted that the accommodation at first floor was with the petitioner. The accommodation

.consisted of two bedrooms, one store room, one kitchen, bath and latrine. While one bedroom was being used by the petitioner and his wife, the other room was being used as a drawing room. The store room was being used for keeping articles. The wife of the petitioner was a pious lady and she had no pooja room. The sister of the petitioner was living with the petitioner and she had no room or kitchen for her proper living. The petitioner was facing great inconvenience and difficulty when his son and daughter-in-law and grand children living abroad visit India as there was no proper accommodation for their stay in the premises and at least one room was required for them for their stay whenever they visit India. Likewise, petitioner’s married daughter residing in UK also used to visit the petitioner and his wife every now and then along with her husband and children and on account of paucity of accommodation, they also cannot stay with them and they have to stay outside. The petitioner required the ground floor premises in occupation of the of the tenant (respondent herein) for his and his family’s bonafide requirement.

3. The tenant took objection about the ownership of the petitioner and relationship of landlord and tenant as well as about the bonafide requirement. However, learned ARC found that the petitioner was the owner of the premises and the dispute raised by the respondent about the ownership was not a genuine dispute. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also proved. However, learned ARC observed that the sister of the petitioner had been living independently on the ground floor in one room and this portion was sufficient to meet her requirements and the petitioner and his wife who were living on the first floor in two rooms had sufficient accommodation to meet their requirements as they can occupy one room and one room can be used for the guests as and when guests come. The same room can be used as a drawing room by the petitioner. Thus in view of learned ARC, the petitioner failed to prove his bonafide requirement and he dismissed the eviction petition of the petitioner (landlord).

.4. The order of the learned ARC has been challenged on the ground that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and also failed to consider the bonafide requirement of the petitioner qua ailments of the petitioner. The petitioner was suffering from glaucoma in his eyes and had poor visibility and was having high blood pressure. The petitioner’s wife was also suffering stomach trouble and had been operated twice. The petitioner and his wife both were in old age and used to remain sick and they required an accommodation on the ground floor. The petitioner’s sister was

.living in one room on the ground floor and there was no other portion on the ground floor which could be used by the petitioner’s sister as there was only one latrine and bathroom on the first floor. The sister of the petitioner had fallen from her bed on 21st February 2004 and was operated upon on 23rd February 2004 Her medical record was proved before