R.N. Aggarwal, J.
(1) Petitioner is tenant in 2nd floor since 1.12.68 while landlord is occupying 1st floor & 3rd floor. On 11.5.77. landlord sued petitioner for eviction u/s 25B, of Rent Act on the ground of personal requirement. Para 3 onwards, judgment is ;-
(2) The landlord in para 18 (a) of the petition alleged that he was previously a tenant in house No 4790, Haus Qazi, Phatak Namak, Delhi and was living there with his wife, his children, brother's widow and sister's son Jagdish Khanna and his family, that after the house in question was built he with his family shifted to the first floor of the house and his brother's widow Parbati Devi and Jagdish Khanna and his family continued to reside in house No. 4790, Hauz Qazi, that on 29th March, 1976 the landlord of house No 4790 Hauz Qazi filed an application for eviction against him and his application was allowed and he vacated the house on 31st December 1976 that Parbati Devi and Jagdish Khanna with his family shifted to reside with him permanently. The landlord in 18(a)(u) stated as under : (.........) The landlord alleged that he was in possession of only 3 bed rooms with 3 toilets, 1 drawingcum dining, stores, kitchen, verandah on the first floor of the house and the said accommodation was not sufficient for his family and he did not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation in his possession.
(3) The tenant filed an application under sub-section (4) of section 25B for leave to appear and contest the application. Along with the application the tenant filed an affidavit. The tenant in the affidavit denied that Parvati Devi and Jagdish Khanna form part of the family of the landlord. It was also stated that they were not dependent on the landlord. The tenant further pleaded that besides the entire first floor the landlord had also in his possession the whole of the third floor which comprises of 2 rooms, 1 toilet and a large terrace. The tenant further pleaded that since 1969 the landlord had let out three1 times successively the ground floor of house No. A-/158, Safadarjung Enclave. The tenant further pleaded that all the persons mentioned in paragraph 18(a)(4) had been living in the house A-l/158 before 1st December 1968 when he (tenant) came to occupy the second floor of the said house.
(4) The landlord in the application did not controvert the allegation regarding his possession of the third floor of the building in dispute.
(5) The Additional Rent Controller on a consideration of the material before her came to the conclusion that the affidavit filed by the tenant did not disclose such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of the recovery of possession of the premises in dispute. Accordingly, the Additional Rent Controller allowed the petition of the landlord. Against the above order the tenant has come in revision.
(6) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the case does raise triable issues which if found in favor of the tenant would result in the dismissal of the petition of the landlord. The landlord had alleged that he was only in possession of the first floor and that accommodation was insufficient for his family. The tenant in reply stated that the landlord was also in possession of the third floor which consisted of 2 rooms, toilet and a big terrace. It was admitted on behalf of the landlord that he is in possession of the entire third floor. On the above pleas the question would arise whether the accommodation in possession of the landlord of the third floor is reasonably suitable for the family of the landlord or not. The determination of the above question would depend upon the evidence that may be produced by the parties. This question cannot be disposed of without affording the tenant reasonable opportunity to prove that there is reasonably suitable accommodation in the possession of the landlord.
(7) The next important question that, to my mind, arises for determination in the petition is whether Smt. Prabati Devi and Jagdish Khanna and his family can be said to be members of the family of the landlord and if so whether they are dependant on the landlord. It is the landlord's own case that Parbati Devi and Jagdish Khanna with his family lived in house No. 4790 Hauz Qazi and they bad shifted to live with the landlord on the first floor only after 31st December, 1976.
(8) Mr. Ishwar Sahni learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, contended that it was case of the tenant that Prabati Devi and Jagdish Khanna and his family resided with landlord since before 1st December 1968 and, thereforee, the question whether Parbati Devi and Jagdish Khanna form part of the family of the landlord or not has to be decided only on the allegations made in affidavit. It the affidavit of the tenant is read as a whole it is very clearly stated theretn that Parbati Devi and Jagdish Khanna and his family do not from part of the family of the landlord. I am of the considered view that on the averments made in the application for eviction and the affidavit filed by the tenant, an important question arises whether Parbati Devi and Jagdish Khanna and his family form part of the family of the landlord and whether they can be said to be dependant on the landlord.