ORDER
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Rent Controller passed on 4.6.99 declining the leave to contest the eviction petition. He has further contended that inspite of the fact that the petitioner has filed a Site Plan showing that the accommodation available with the respondent was sufficient, that Site Plan was not taken into consideration for the purpose of granting leave to contest the eviction petition.
2. Another contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order suffers from illegality as the Rent Controller has taken the requirement of an office for both the sons whereas under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act it is the requirement of the owner/landlord for the purpose of residence for himself or for dependent members of his family which ought to have been taken into consideration by the Rent Controller. He also contended that the Supreme Court judgment in Dr. S.N. Mehra Vs. D.D. Malik arising out of S.L.P. No. 236 dated January 11, 1990 was also brought to the notice of the Rent Controller but she has not taken into consideration the said authority of the Supreme Court. I do not find any force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Here is a tenant who has denied every averment of the owner/landlord. He has denied the extent of the family members but has nowhere stated as to how many members were there in the family of the landlord. There was an averment in the eviction petition that one of the daughters namely Sharda has become widow. Copy of death certificate of son-in-law was filed by the respondent. Still, the petitioner has chosen to deny the factum of the daughter of the petitioner becoming widow.
4. Let me take into account the alternate Site Plan filed by the petitioner though the same has been discussed in detail by the Rent Controller.
5. There is no dispute with regard to the accommodation available on the second floor of the property in question. The dispute is with regard to the first floor. According to the respondent there are four rooms. According to the petitioner there are six rooms. On what basis the petitioner wants that the two rooms measuring 9′ x 8′ next to the open terrace be also considered as living rooms for the respondent? He does not stop here. A room measuring 9’x13′ in the Site Plan of the petitioner had been divided into two rooms measuring measuring 9′ 1/2′ x 13′ each. He wants respondent to use a room
of the size of 6’x 5′ as kitchen. There has to be some limit to the ingenuimity of a tenant. Can a tenant force a landlord as to in what manner he should live in his own property so as to enable the tenant to live comfortably. That can not be the intention of the law.
6. The Rent Controller has taken into consideration the size of the respondent which consists of respondent and his wife, two married sons who require two rooms, one room for the grand son, one room for the widowed daughter and two rooms for the growing son and daughter of the widowed daughter. The requirement of a drawing-cum-dining room and a guest room is neither arbitrary nor whimsical. Petitioner himself has admitted that one son of the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and another son is a lawyer. Both being professionals, would definitely like to have a library-cum-
study-cum-office and that is not requirement of premises for purposes other than residence. A professional would like to have some kind of place where he resides to have his library or to meet people who would visit him for consultation. I do not find any infirmity with the order of the Rent Controller.
7. Dismissed.