Judgment:
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.
(1) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 18th November 1986. Briefly the facts are these :- A petition for eviction was filed by the landlord under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises in occupation of the tenant are bonafide required by the petitioner for himself and for his family members dependent on him. The case set up in the petition was that the petitioner is in occupation of a drawing-cum-dining room and two bed rooms with attached bath rooms and two verandahs and a kitchen on the ground floor of property No. E-150, Greater Kailash Part-1. New Delhi. It was claimed that the said accommodation was not sufficient to meet the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and his family members dependent upon him. The eviction petition was filed in February 1983. At the time of filing the eviction petition the ages of two sons of the petitioner were 17 and 12 years respectively. Now the eldest son is 23 years old and the age of the younger son is 18 years. In the eviction petition the petitioner also claimed that his mother was also staying with him.
(2) The eviction petition was resisted by the tenant respondent but the only ground pressed before the Additional Rent Controller was on the question of bonafide requirement of the petitioner and members of his family dependent upon him. The ownership of the petitioner and the purpose of letting was not disputed before the trial Court. The trial Court by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the petitioner has four bed rooms on the ground floor. The trial Court further came to the conclusion that the petitioner required one bed room for himself and his wife, one bed room for his mother and two bed rooms for his grown up children. The eviction petition was, however, dismissed as according to the Additional Rent Controller there were four bed rooms as contended by the tenant and not two bed rooms as contended by the petitioner.
(3) The order of learned Additional Rent Controller is under challenge in this petition filed by the landlord. On 19th February 1987 this Court directed that notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted be issued to the tenant-respondent for 30th March 1987. On 30th March 1987 counsel for the respondent wanted time to complete the file and file answer to the show cause. The revision petition was accordingly adjourned to 6th May 1987 and it was specifically directed that it will be disposed of finally on the said date. On 6th May 1987, on a request made by counsel for the tenant, the case was adjourned to 12th May 1987. On 12th May 1987 also, the answer to show cause was not filed and the case was adjourned to the 20th May 1987. In between i.e. on 18th May 1987 answer to show cause was filed by the tenant- respondent. Thereafter, for one reason or the other the matter was adjourned from time to time for final disposal of the revision petition. Ultimately on 5th January 1988 Mr. R.S. Narula, learned counsel for the respondent sought adjournment to seek instructions from his client to the effect as to whether he is willing to seek some time and give an undertaking to that effect to this Court for vacating the premises. On request of Mr. Narula the case was adjourned to 12th February 1988. It was made clear in the order that no further adjournment will be granted. However, the matter could not be taken up till 12th April 1988. On 12th April 1988 Mr. R.S. Narula, learned advocate then appearing for the respondent made a statement that the respondent will admit the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and will file an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that he will handover vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the petitioner on or before 30th day of April 1990, Along with the usual clauses. The landlord will also file an undertaking that the property will not be alienated within this period. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 21st April 1988. However, the matter was taken up on 2nd May 1988 when counsel for the respondent expressed their desire to withdraw their vakalatnama. The counsel was directed to file an application. It was also directed that respondent should be present in court on 4th May 1988 when the application of the advocates Along with the main revision petition will be taken up for final disposal. On 4th May 1988 the application filed by the advocates for permission to withdraw their vakalatnarna was placed before the court. The respondent was not present on 4th May 1988 inspire of the specific order dated 2nd May 1988. The Court directed the personal presence of the respondent on 19th May 1988 and it was directed that counsel may get their client available on the said date. Summons were also directed to be issued to the respondent to be present in person in Court on 19th May 1988. On 19th May 1988 Mr. J.M. Lal, advocate, appeared for the respondent. The earlier counsel appearing for the respondent were permitted to withdraw from the case. The respondent was again not present on 19th May 1988. On request of Mr. Lal the case was adjourned to today.
(4) Mr. Lal states that it is not possible for the respondent to settle the matter and give undertaking in terms of the statement of Mr. R.S. Narula, advocate, made on 12th April 1988. Accordingly, I have heard learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions on the merit of controversy between the parties.
(5) The point involved in the petition is really very short one. The only controversy is about the extent of accommodation available with the petitioner on the ground floor of premises No. E-l 50. Greater Kailash. Part-I, New Delhi. There is also controversy between the parties about the extent of the members of the family dependent upon the petitioner. The plea of tenant is, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the mother of the petitioner cannot be treated as a dependent member of the family of the landlord. The landlord controverts this stand of the tenant. Mr. Arun Moban. learned counsel for the petitioner, has, however, staled that for the purposes of this petition, the members of the family dependent on the petitioner may be considered only as four, namely, the petitioner, his wife and two sons. He submits that for considering this petition the requirement of the mother may not be taken into consideration. Admittedly, the present ages of the two sons of the petitioner are 23 and 18 years. Now I am left with the question of the extent of the accommodation.
(6) In the impugned order under challenge the learned Additional Rent Controller has held that the petitioner has four rooms in his possession. For arriving at this conclusion the court took into consideration the two portions marked 'A' and 'B' in plan Exhibit R/3. According to the tenant these portions marked 'A' and 'B' are rooms but according to the petitioner- landlord the said portions are varandahs. In the impugned order discrepancies have been found out in the plan filed by the petitioner and in the oral testimony given by him in court. Accordingly, I will confine myself to the plan Ex. R-3 as filed by the tenant himself. A reference to this plan makes it clear that the measurement of the portion marked 'A' is 9' 6' X 10'.0'. The measurement of portion marked 'B' is 7'.3'X9'.6'.lnmy opinion, by no stretch of imagination the portions marked 'A' and 'B' can be described as bed rooms The tenant contends that the said portions are being used as bed rooms. The landlord denies it. In my view the portion marked 'A' and 'B' cannot be used as bed rooms and the version of the tenant that it is being used as bed room, is not sustainable. However, assuming what respondent says is correct then too, in my opinion, the petitioner-landlord cannot be forced to use the said portions which are obviously verandahs as bed rooms for all times to come. If on account of paucity of accommodation and force of circumstances, a landlord uses the portions like the one described above, as bed rooms, that rather shows the bonafides of the landlord. No malafides can be inferred from the user of the said portions as bed room by the landlord.
(7) The area of the plot on which the building has been made is only 208 sq. yds. The locations of the said portions marked 'A' and 'B' is such that it is not possible to use the said portions as bed rooms. The tenant himself has placed on record the photographs of the front portion marked 'B'. A bare perusal of the said photographs shows that it is only a front verandah and it is not possible to use portion marked 'B' as bed room. The portion marked 'A' is a rear varandah and the kitchen has entrance only from this portion. As such this portion can also not be used as a bed room. The area of both these portions is less than 100sq. ft According to the Building Bye laws no habitable room shall have a floor area of less than 100 sq. ft. except in the case of a hostel attached to recognised educational institutions where the minimum size of a habitable room for the residence of a single person can be 80 sq. ft. However, it is not necessary for me to go into this question because from any angle it is not possible to use these portions marked 'A' and 'B' as bed rooms. In case these two portions are ignored the petitioner is left with only two bed rooms. Admittedly, besides the husband and wife the petitioner has two grown up sons who require a separate bed rooms. Even the learned trial Court assessed the bonafide requirement of the petitioner of four bed rooms. I am assuming it to be of three bed rooms, for the purposes of disposal of this petition, and even those three bed rooms are not available to the petitioner. No reasonable men will describe the portions marked 'A' and 'B' as bed rooms. The portions, even according to the tenant, are varandahs but his case is that it is being used as bed rooms. The petitioner cannot be forced for all times to come to hassle himself and use the varandahs as bed rooms. It is well settled that a landlord is entitled to make himself reasonably comfortable. In any case the requirement of one bed room for husband and wife and two bed rooms for two grown up children cannot be said to be unreasonable.
(8) Mr. Lal, faintly suggested that accommodation at Flat No. 32, Ansari Market. New Delhi, is available to the petitioner. The contention is misconceived as even according to the stand taken by the tenant in his written statement the said property is being used for commercial purposes. Even otherwise the petitioner cannot be forced to bifurcate his family. The learned trial Court in the impugned order has also observed that in the written statement the stand of the respondent is that the said property is being used for commercial purposes. The petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction in respect of tenanted premises on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act.
(9) For the reasons stated above, I set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and instead pass an order of eviction in favor of the petitioner and against the res-pondent in respect of the tenanted premises. The order would, however, ret be executable for a period of six months. The revision petition is allowed leaving the parties bear their own costs.