JUDGMENT
N.N. Goswamy, J.
(1) This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the eviction order dated 17-12-1985 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi.
(2) The respondents filed a petition under Section 14(1) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. It was pleaded that the respondents were the owners of the premises in dispute which were let to the petitioner in the year 1969-70. The respondents were in possession of four rooms and two rooms were likely to be vacated by another tenant and as such the respondents would be in possession of only six rooms. The said accommodation of six rooms was too short for the number of family members of the respondents.
(3) After having obtained leave to defend the petitioner filed the written statement. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the respondents were not the owners and in any case the respondents had sufficient accommodation in their possession and the petition had been filed only because of the fact that the rent of the premises had risen, and the respondents wanted to realise higher rent. It was further pleaded that in the year 1975, the respondents bad let out two rooms to one Mahata and there has been no change or circumstances since then. In the replication, it was admitted that the respondents had let out two rooms to Mr. Mahata about three years prior to the filing of the petition and it was pleaded that at that time two of the respondents were unemployed and were now gainfully employed and are to be married and as such further accommodation had become necessary.
(4) During the pendency of the petition, an application for additional evidence was filed by the petitioner on the ground that Mr. Mahata had vacated the two rooms in his possession and as such those rooms had also become available to the respondents, in reply to the application, this fact was admitted by the respondents. The learned Addl. Rent Controller, however, over looked this aspect of additional evidence and came to the conclusion that the respondents were in possession of only six rooms which were not sufficient for their requirement.
(5) The contention of the learned counsel, for the petitioner-tenant, was that the respondents were in possession of eight rooms as admitted by them in their reply to the application for additional evidence. It was further contended that in addition to these eight rooms, the respondents were in possession of store, two covered verandahs also. From the entire evidence, it cannot be gathered that the two verandahs are covered verandahs but in any case the two verandahs do not have an area of more than 100 sq. ft. and as such even if they are taken to be covered the same cannot be considered to be rooms fit for residence. Thus the accommodation available with the respondents is three bed rooms and drawing-cum-dining room on the ground floor and similar accommodation on the first floor. This fact impliedly stands admitted because the petitioner No. 1 as AW4 deposed that the petitioners were in possession of four rooms on the ground floor, two rooms on the first floor. In cross-examination, it was put to him that in addition to the four rooms on the ground floor, the respondents had also a store and two verandahs. As regards the first floor, it was put to him that besides the two rooms, there was also a kitchen on the first floor. This was admitted by AW4. Thus it has to be taken that the respondents are in possession of four rooms on the ground floor including the drawing-cum-dining room and four rooms on the first floor including the drawing-cum-dining room. This includes the two rooms which have been vacated by Mr. Mahata during the pendency of the petition.
(6) The question for consideration is as to whether these eight rooms are sufficient for residence of the petitioners and members of their families. In the statement of AW4 as also in reply to the application for additional evidence, it has been brought out that the family of petitioner No. 1 consists of himself, his wife, his two daughters, now aged about 25 years and 20 years and a son aged 24 years. The family of petitioner No. 2 consists of himself, his wife, his son aged about 17 years and his daughter aged about 15 years. The family of petitioner No. 3 consists of himself only as he is stated to be unmarried. The family of petitioner No. 4 consists of himself, his wife, his son aged about 7 years and the younger son aged about six years. Besides the petitioners, their parents are also residing with them. There is hardly any dispute regarding the number of family members of the petitioners, because no cogent evidence has been led by the petitioner to indicate that the number of family members is in any way less than what has been mentioned. On the contrary, the petitioners have proved not only by their oral evidence but also by the ration cards that the family numbers as stated by them are correct. Thus the total number of family members of the petitioners who are residing in the premises are sixteen. Out of these sixteen members, nine members are in employment and getting a salary ranging from Rs. 1300.00 to Rs. 2300.00 per month. The detailed facts of their employment are mentioned in reply to the application for additional evidence. Considering the fact that petitioner No. 1 has a grown up son and two grown up daughters, each member of the family of petitioner No. 1 needs a separate room. Thus petitioner No. 1 needs five rooms or in any case four rooms even if the two daughters can be accommodated in one room. Similarly petitioner No. 2 needs at least two rooms. Petitioner No. 3 needs one room. Petitioner No. 4 needs at least two rooms and the parents required at least one room. The requirement of the petitioners, therefore, is of at least ten rooms which they do not have. In addition, to these ten rooms, considering the status of the family, they are entitled to at least one drawing-cum-dining room and a room for guests. The respondents admittedly do not have even ten rooms which is the bare necessity and as such their requirement has to be considered as bona fide.
(7) For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The petitioner will, however, have three months’ time from to-day to hand over vacant possession of the premises. There will be no order as to costs.