JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. The Additional Rent Controller passed an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The said order was passed on 4th day of June, 1994. Since then the matter has been pending in this Court.
2. Mr. Andley, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the eviction petition the respondent has shown that he was having only two rooms on the ground floor. However, the Local Commissioner who was appointed at the request of the respondent reported that there were three portions of the property in question and the respondent had twelve room, one shop and one factory which was sufficient for his accommodation. Mr. Andley has contended that there was material concealment by the respondent with regard to the accommodation available with him.
3. The second argument advanced by Mr. Andley was that the testimony of Sh. Kishan Gopal ought to have been rejected out rightly by the Additional Rent Controller. On the other hand, respondent in his petition has contended that the petitioners’ family consists of themselves i.e. Phoolwati-widow, her sons namely Om Prakash, Amar Pal, Anand Kumar. Petitioner No. 2-Om Prakash had his wife, three sons aged 19 years, 16 years and 14 years (in 1988 when the petition was filed), daughters aged 18 and 12 years. Petitioner No. 3 Amar Pal had his wife, daughter aged 4 years and son aged 2 years and petitioner No. 4 Anand Kumar who was then unmarried although it was mentioned that he was of marriageable age. It was further stated in the petition that accommodation available with the respondent was two rooms on the ground floor measuring 9’x 7′, 14’x 11.3′ and one kitchen on the ground floor and one room measuring 6.3′ x 7.6′ and one tin shed measuring 12’x 8′ on the first floor. Additional Rent Controller had appointed a Local Commissioner. At that stage, the petitioner had not objected to the appointment of the Local Commissioner by the Additional Rent Controller. However, when the Local Commissioner filed the report the petitioner took objection to the report of the Local Commissioner. What Mr. Andley argued before me is that the Local Commissioner’s report so far as it suggests that there are three portions of the property in question be accepted but the explanation of Kishan Gopal, who is stated to be in occupation of one of the portions of the said property, should be rejected.
4. The respondent has produced Kishan Gopal in the witness box who has stated that the portion on the ground floor as well as on the first floor has been constructed by him and it is he who is doing the stitching work of under garments. I can not understand as to why the report of the Local Commissioner regarding measurement of each room has not been taken into consideration by the Additional Rent Controller as that would have thrown much light on the controversy in question. Same has not been taken into consideration on account of objection of the petitioner. In the report the Local Commissioner has submitted that house No. 9417 consists of three parts. “The first part is having ground floor and first floor and ground floor has one shop of Anand which measures 5’x 6′ approx. and on its one side is 7’x 6′ one room like verandah used as storage godown of provision stores items. On its back one room 8’x 11′ of Smt. Phoolwati with one kitchen cum verandah of size 7’x 8′ approx. The first floor of this portion is of Om Prakash which consists of one room 8’x 11′, one tin shed verandah, kitchen, bath of temporary naked bricks.
5. The second part of 9417 is ground floor which consists of one room 9’x 9′ approx. and one room like covered pucca verandah 7’x 9′ approx. which are in possession of Amarpal. The first floor and terrace is in possession of Anand and his rooms are also 9’x 9′ and 7’x 9′ respectively above ground floor.
6. The third part at the ground floor has one room 9’x 9′ and one pucca covered room like verandah 6’x 9′ This is in possession of Kishan Gopal’s brother Shiv Gopal. The first floor has additional bath room with stair case in front side. The rooms 9’x 9′ and 6’x 9′ are in occupation of Kishan Gopal. The second floor has one large hall 9’x 18′ used as tailoring business of brassiere etc. Ten sewing machines are lying in this hall with five workmen. These machines belong to Nitu alias Jai Prakash s/o Krishan Gopal.
7. In view of this report of the Local Commissioner Kishan Gopal was a material witness as he was in occupation of a portion of the property in dispute. Therefore, I hold that the testimony of Kishan Gopal has rightly been taken into consideration by the Additional Rent Controller in determining the availability of the accommodation with the respondents. From the perusal of the report of the Local Commissioner, it would be amply clear that size of the rooms was so small that same can not even be considered as habitable. Therefore, there is no force in the argument of counsel for the petitioner that there exists suitable accommodation much less twelve rooms with the respondent and the need of the respondent in that regard was not bona fide. The Additional Rent Controller has discussed all the points raised and returned a reasoned finding that the requirement of the respondent for accommodation was bona fide. I do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller. Revision petition is dismissed.