JUDGMENT

D.K. Kapur, J. (Oral)--This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, involves some questions which can be described as fine questions of law, although the learned counsel for the respondent contends that these are only questions of fact. In view of the order I propose to pass in deciding this revision. I propose to say as little as possible on the facts, but still it is necessary to set out the circumstances of the case to indicate the questions of law involved in this case have arisen.

2. The respondent in this Court Smt. Saraswati Devi is the wife of Shri Shiv Nath Rai Mahna, Advocate. She is also the mother of Shri Yashpal Mahna and Shri Rajesh Mahna, who are both advocates. She was formerly living at Palwal where her husband was practising as a lawyer, he retired on account of old age and ill health; sold his house and decided to move to Delhi. At Delhi, the landlady owns a house situated at F-77, Green Park, New Delhi. That house has ground floor, first floor and a barsati floor. The two flats situated at the ground floor and at the first floor are of identical size. The barsati floor consists of one large room measuring 23' X 13'. The rest of the space is open. There appears to be an open lavatory plus a temporary kitchen. The petitioner is a tenant in that barsati. According to the petitioning landlady the tenant did not have the kitchen and the lavatory in his tenancy. But that is not the question for decision at this stage. On the ground floor and the first floor, the flats have a drawing cum dining room, two bed rooms and a guest room, a kitchen and two lavatories. The case of the landlady for eviction of the tenant from the barsati was based on the claim that she and her dependent members had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. This was contested by the tenant.

3. The eviction petition was tried by Sri G. P. Thareja Second Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, under the summary procedure prescribed by Section 25B of the Act, leave to defend was granted by the Controller. Statements before issues were recorded. The Controller found that the premises i.e.,the barsati was required by the petitioner bona fide and that she had no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

4. Before dealing with the questions raised in this petition, it is necessary to set out the case of the tenant who is the petitioner here. He claimed that the eviction petition should be rejected on the ground that it was not bona fide. He claimed that the ground floor had fallen vacant many times and in every case the landlady had been letting out the property at an increased rent. The ground floor was first let out to Shri Ajay Kapoor at Rs.600/- per month, then it was let to Shri R.K. Mathur at Rs.950/- and after that ground floor had been let out at Rs.1500/- per month. It was claimed that the landlady did not need any accommodation as the ground floor had not been utilised when it had fallen vacant. On the other hand, the first floor is admittedly not let out to any person. The claim of the landlady was : (a) that she did not require the accommodation to the extent provided by the ground floor and (b) she was economically dependent on the rent of the ground floor and so could not occupy that property. In short, the landlady claimed that she only wanted the barsati floor as only some additional space was required. According to the landlady, her family consisted of her self and her husband and her two sons who are both practising lawyers and their wives and the grand children. If all these persons are taken into consideration, I think it would be undoubtedly true to say that the case of the landlady had established itself and no order in this revision was called for.

5. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the case was not fought in this manner at all. The landlady made a statement before issues on April 11, 1979 to the following terms:

"I require the