SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27th March 2002 of the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dismissing the eviction petition of the petitioner under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) filed on the ground of bonafide requirement in respect of two rooms, kitchen, latrine on premises bearing no.6362, Ward No.XIV, Gali Babu Bashrat.

2. The landlord (petitioner herein) filed the eviction petition in the year 1998 on the ground of bonafide requirement of his family comprising of himself, his wife, four sons and three daughters. His two daughters were married and the elder son, aged 25 years, was of marriageable age. The other children were school-going. The petitioner was in occupation of only two rooms in the property bearing no.5084, Gali Masjid Chhapparwali, Qassabpura. The petitioners requirement at the time of filing of the eviction petition was of at least five bedrooms, one drawing room, one study room, a store, kitchen, bathroom and a toilet so that the petitioner and his family could live in a dignified manner.

3. The respondents in the written statement had not denied the ownership and relationship of landlord and tenant but took a stand that the premises was let out for residential-cum-commercial premises and the accommodation in occupation of the petitioner was not correctly shown. The extent of the family of the petitioner was, however, not disputed. It was stated that the petitioner was having entire property bearing number 5084, Gali Masjid Chhapparwali, Qassabpura in his occupation. The property consisted of four rooms on the ground floor and three rooms on the first floor. Besides this, the petitioner was also having property bearing number 5093 to 5095 in Gali Chowkidarwali in his use and occupation and the need of the petitioner was not bonafide.

.Both the parties adduced evidence to prove their respective case. The learned ARC after considering the evidence of both sides observed that although the respondent had not stated in the written statement as to for what commercial purpose he was using the premises, but the onus to prove that the premises was let out for residential purpose was on the petitioner and this onus has not been sufficiently discharged. Learned ARC, however, considered the ground of bonafide requirement of landlord/petitioner also and observed that the petitioner has failed to show his bonafide requirement and has not come clean on the accommodation available with him.

4. It is settled law that while exercising power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot act as a Court of appeal and has not to re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate court. However, this Court can appreciate evidence of the witnesses to assure itself that the learned ARC has not given its verdict contrary to the evidence or without evidence.

5. In order to consider the bonafide requirements of the petitioner, the learned trial court was supposed to consider the extent of the landlords family and what was its requirement keeping in view the number of family members and their ages and what accommodation was available with the landlord. The petitioner (landlord) had contended that it was in occupation of the first floor bearing no.5084 while ground floor was in possession of his brother and the second floor was in possession of his sister, since the property was an ancestral property and his share was only the first floor. Instead of considering the extent of the petitioners family and the accommodation available to the petitioner, the learned ARC entered into the controversy as to why the petitioner had not appeared in the witness box initially but later on appeared and no document was placed on record to show that he was seriously ill or was not able to appear in the witness box earlier. It was also observed that the petitioner has not deposed anything about the purpose of letting out or bonafide requirement.

6. I c