The court established that a landlord's bona fide requirement for accommodation due to old age and ailments, as well as the need to provide for visiting family members, are valid grounds for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. The petitioner (tenant) is aggrieved by an order dated 27.3.2008 passed by the learned ARC whereby his application under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for permission to leave to contest the eviction petition was dismissed.

.2. The premises consisting of three bedrooms, one store, kitchen, verandah, bath and latrine on the ground floor of the property No. 58, BD Estate, Timarpur, Delhi was let out to the tenant on 1.11.1981. The landlord (respondent) stated his family consisted of himself, his wife, six daughters and one son. He was residing at first floor of the property consisting of three rooms, two stores, kitchen, lobby, bath and latrine and one store on the ground floor. The second floor of the property was in possession of his daughter Smt. Anjali Garg, who was living there along with her son. The son of the respondent/landlord was working in Australia having one son and daughter. His family used to frequently visit India and live with the landlord during that period. The other married daughters also used to visit him with their children and stay in the suit property.

3. The landlord submitted that he was aged 70 years and his wife was aged 67 years, both of them had difficulty in climbing the stairs and need to live on the ground floor. The landlord had become ostro-arthritis while he was in Nigeria and he was operated for postrute gleclui in the year 1997. After operation, he became weak and his weakness increased because of growing age. He was also hospitalized in March, 2001 for ulcer and polyburst in the stomach. His wife suffered from slipped disc in the backbone while in Nigeria. Both of them now need to live at the ground floor. He and his wife were taking help in their old age of their daughter Smt. Anjali Garg and her son, who were living at the second floor. His daughter was dependant on him for the purpose of accommodation and she was living in the second floor which was not sufficient for her since she had a son of marriageable age and a separate room was required for him. The landlord contended that a drawing room, a dining room, puja room, guest room and a room for their children was required. Besides this, he also required two rooms for his son, who used to come and stay along with his family and whose all goods were lying with the landlord. The landlord also stated that the premises let out to the tenant was lying locked. The tenant was residing in property No. 83 BD.Estate, Timarpur along with his family. This property was acquired by him and his son.

.4. The petitioner filed leave to defend application stating therein that the landlord was having several other properties apart from 58 BD.Estate, Timarpur. The next plea was that the premises was let out for residential and commercial purposes and the premises was not bona fidely required by the landlord. The diseases stated by the landlord were doubted as the same were not found by the tenant in the medical dictionary. The landlord, according to petitioner merely had a wish and desire to live at the ground floor and mere wish and desire was not sufficient for obtaining eviction. The landlord and his wife had no difficulty in climbing stairs; they had no actual and existing need for the tenanted premises. It was also stated that site plan filed by the landlord was wrong. The lobby of 11? 7.5? X 9? 9? shown by landlord was covered from all sides and had been converted into a room. The landlord had wrongly designated one room as a store, so the landlord was in possession of five rooms on the first floor besides on store room on the ground floor. There were only two persons in the family i.e. he and his wife. His daughter Smt. Anjali Garg and her son were having separate kitchen and earnings. They were not dependant on the landlord and did not form part of the landlords family. It was also stated that the first husband of the landlord?s daughter Smt. Anjali had expired and she had re-married and was now livi