The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of suitable accommodation for the landlord and the legal principles related to the landlord-tenant relationship.

1. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order [dated 20th March, 2017 in E No. 292/2014 (New No.80119/2016) of the Court of Additional Rent Controller (ARC)-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi] of eviction, after full trial, of the petitioner from property No.5626, Ward No.16, Gali No. 76-77, Block-A, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-05.

2. The petition came up before this Court first on 24th May, 2017, when the notice of this petition was ordered to be issued, though recording that the impugned order was of dismissal of the application for leave to defend and without realising that the order impugned was of eviction after full trial, but no stay of the order of eviction impugned granted.

3. The respondent is reported to be served and this petition is listed next on 8th March, 2018.

4. An application filed by the petitioner for early hearing of this petition, stating that the respondent has applied for execution of the order of eviction, is listed today. On a reading of the paper book, not finding any prima facie ground for interference to have been made out, the counsel for the petitioner has today itself been heard on the merits of the Rent Control Revision Petition.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has raised three arguments. Firstly, it is contended that the respondent claimed ownership of the premises in the tenancy of the petitioner on the basis of a sale deed but which sale deed has not been proved in accordance with law and thus ownership of the respondent has not been proved. The second contention is that the respondent herself did not step into the witness box and only her son appeared as her Power of Attorney holder, that too without obtaining any permission from the Court for appearing as the Power of Attorney of the respondent. The third contention is that no bona fide requirement of the respondent of the premises in the tenancy of the petitioner has been proved.

6. The respondent instituted the petition for eviction, from which this petition arises, pleading (i) that the father of the petitioner was already a tenant on the first floor and barsati floor of property No. 5626, Ward No.16, Gali No.76-77, Block-A, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, when the same was purchased by the respondent vide sale deed dated 26th October, 1989; (ii) that after the death of the father of the petitioner, the tenancy devolved on the petitioner; (iii) that the petitioner has been using the premises for residence; (iv) that the ground floor of the property was also with a tenant who vacated the same after the property had been purchased by the respondent and handed over the possession of the same to the respondent; (v) that the said ground floor has been in use and occupation of the son of the respondent who is having his office of tours and travels in the same; (vi) that the respondent is presently residing in one room situated on the ground floor of property No. 2756-57/22, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi along with the family of her another son Azad Kumar; (vii) that the respondent requires the premises in the tenancy of the petitioner for occupation by herself as she wants to shift from property No. 2756-57/22, Beadon Pura to live comfortably in her own house and the respondent has no other accommodation available to herself; (viii) that property No. 2756-57/22, Beadon Pura belonged to the ancestor of the husband of the respondent and devolved on the husband of the respondent along with other heirs of the said ancestor and only a portion of property No. 2756-57/22, Beadon Pura had fallen to the share of the husband of the respondent; (ix) that the ground floor of the aforesaid property which had fallen to the share of the husband of the respondent consists of three rooms only which are occupied by the son Azad Kumar of the respondent and his family members and in one of the said rooms, the respondent also is residing; (x) that the family of Azad Kuma