JUDGMENT
P.N. Khanna, J.
(1) Respondent No. 1, Dhanpat Singh, is the owner landlord of a house situated in Katra Khushal Rai, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The main ground floor has been let out for commercial purposes. He himself is in occupation of one room, measuring 16.5′ X 14.8′ and a store, measuring 11′ X 7′. on the first floor, two rooms measuring 7′ X 7.5′ and 16.5′ x 7.1′ respectively, on the second floor and two tin sheds measuring 15.5’X 81/3′ and 19/3/4’X71/6′ respectively, with an open terrace on the third floor. He is the head of the family consisting of fourteen members (although the number of members is stated to have further increased since the judgment under appeal was pronounced). The appellant himself is of about 62 years of age and his wife also is about the same age. He has three sons, one of whom has his wife and six. children. The second son has also his wife and a son. The third son, aged 23 years, was unmarried on the date of the decision by the Tribunal (said to have been married since then). The ages of the grand children ranged from two years to fourteen years. Four of them are of school going ages. All members are joint in mess, residence and business. The landlord is an income-tax assessed and is said to own another house in Green Park.
(2) The Tribunal was of the view that the accommodation with the landlord was not sufficient for his needs and the needs of his family and there was nothing wrong in his aspiring to live in. a more comfortable house. He was, therefore, held to be in need of more accommodation. The learned counsel for the appellant did not seriously challenge this finding; and the same appears to be correct.
(3) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent- landlord has admittedly constructed a house in Green Park, New Delhi. on a plot of land measuring 250 square yards; and therefore, could not be said to be not having other reasonably suitable residential accornmodation. The question that arises, therefore, is whether the newly constructed house in Green Park can be considered as the other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available to the landlord so as to deprive him of his right to recover from the appellant, possession of the premises in dispute, on the ground prescribed in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section ( 1 ) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
(4) The accommodation with the appellant-tenant, in the same house. in which the landlord along with his family resides, consists of two rooms, measuring 16.5′ X 7.1′ and 17′ X 7.5′ respectively, a kitchen, common courtyard and a common latrine on the ground floor. Tt is, therefore, to be decided, if the appellant-tenant is to be evicted from the premises in dispute to provide extra accommodation to the respondent-landlord, or the landlord is to be forced to leave his present house and shift to his newly constructed house in Green Park at a distance of about 12 miles from his present residence to satisfy his desire to have more room.
(5) The findings of the Tribunal, being findings of fact and not disputed are that the respondent-landlord’s present residence Is situated in the Chandni Chowk locality of Delhi. His business is located in the same locality. The children of his family are receiving education in schools in the same locality. His other relatives and friends are residents of the same locality.
(6) In view of the aforesaid facts, the house in. Green Park cannot be said to be the “other reasonably suitable residential accommodation” available to the landlord. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Green Park locality is much cleaner, healthier and better, and therefore, a more suitable residential accommodation, than the Chandni Chowk accommodation has no substance. It is the requirements and the state of mind of the landlord which has to determine the suitability of a particular accommodation, unless it could be shown that the landlord’s demand is unreasonable or fanciful. The learned counsel for the appellant sought support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suit. Kanila Soni v. Rup Lal Mehra, 1969 Rcr 1017, where it was held: “A mere assertion that the landlord requires premises occupied by a tenant for his personal occupation is not decisive. it is for the Court to determine the truth of the claim, and also to determine whether the claim is bona fide. In determining whether the claim is bona fide the Court is entitled and indeed bound to consider whether it is reasonable. A claim founded on abnormal predilections of the landlord may not be regarded as bona fide”. In that case, the Supreme Court approved the High Court’s decision that the requirement of the landlady was not bona fide having regard to the circumstances such as “the status, her age, her desire to live in her own building, her custom, mode of life and the accommodation available to her on the first floor.” The ground floor in that case, was already available to the landlady and consisted of one office room, one drawing room, one dining room, four bed rooms, four verandahs-two of which had been converted into rooms, two stores, five bath rooms, and a motor garage, while the landlady’s family consisted of herself, her husband and her daughter. It was under these circumstances that the landlady’s requirements were held not bona fide.
(7) In the present case, the suitability of the particular residential accommodation, at present in the occupation of the landlord has to be judged from the point of view of the landlord, himself, unless that point of view, on examination can be found by the Court to be unreasonable. The Court is not expected to impose its own standards on the tenant. The case has to be examined from the perspective of the landlord himself. It is his way of life and his outlook, which are the governing factors. And the suitability of any particular accommodation or its reasonableness has to be determined from that point of view. The respondent has his business in Chandni Chowk, quite close to his residence. He lives near his relatives, friends and associates. The appellants’ learned counsel emphasised the fact that one of his sons has recently purchased a car and that he is otherwise well-to-do. It cannot be ignored, that the children of his family still receive their education in Government run schools in Chandni Chowk locality and not in any public or other considered to be high class schools in Delhi. This gives a fair indication of the landlord’s outlook on life and his view point, which cannot be ignored even when the Court embarks on an examination of the reasonableness and suitability of the residential accommodation. Given the options, the landlord himself would prefer to occupy the house in Chandni Chowk rather than shift over to a house twelve miles away in Green Park.
(8) It is not disputed that the house in Green Park at present has been let out. This shows that the said house was meant to be let out and was never constructed for self occupation and, therefore, the claim of the landlord in the present proceedings is not a mere excuse to get the premises vacated from the tenant, after which the landlord intends to shift himself to Green Park. For, in that case the landlord would have kept the Green Park accommodation vacant for his own occupation later. Looking at the circumstances of the case, therefore, it is clear that the respondents’s claim to the accommodation occupied by the appellant was not founded on any abnormal predilections. It is a bona fide claim; and he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.
(9) In the result, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. The respondent-landlord however, shall not recover possession before the expiration of six months from the date of this order. The appellant shall bear the respondent’s costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250.00.