G.C. Jain, J.
(1) Tej Ram, Respondent herein, is owner of a double storeyed house situated in Chowk Mata Mandir, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, bearing Municipal No. 4838 (First Floor) and 4839 (Ground Floor). Madan Lal, Petitioner herein, is in occupation of a room and a common verandah on the ground floor of the house as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 16/ under the respondent. On February 23, 1977 the respondent sought the eviction of the petitioner from the premises under proviso (e) to sub-section (1) of section 14 and Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short Act). It was averred that the premises in dispute had been let out for residential purposes and were required by him for occupation as residence for himself and members of his family and he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. It was further alleged that he had been allotted a Government quarter No. G-132, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi, but has been directed by the Government to vacate the same by December 31, 1975 on the ground that he owned his own house and he had also been threatened that the rent would be charged at market rate if the premises were not vacated by that date.
(2) The petitioner admitted that the respondent was the owner of the premises. The averment that it was let out for residential purposes was not specifically denied. It was, however, alleged that the respondent was in occupation of a big room measuring 16' x 11', kitchen bath, latrine and a terrace on the first floor and another room measuring 10'x8'' which had been recently vacated by his tenant, Jodha Ram on the first floor, which accommodation was sufficient for his requirement. The allegations regarding the allotment of Srinivaspuri quarter and the directions of the Government were denied. It was pointed out that the respondent never shifted to that quarter and had been letting out the same to various persons and at the moment one M.P. Khanduri was residing there with his family members. It was also pleaded that Section 14A was not applicable and the application was highly belated and was mala-fide.
(3) The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated May 23, 1980 held that the notification of the year 1973 had since been modified and because of the modification the respondent was not entitled to claim eviction under Section 14A(1) of the Act. The correctness of this finding has not been assailed before me on behalf of the respondent-landlord.
(4) As regards the other ground it was held that the family of the respondent consisted of himself, his wife, five sons and five daughters, out of whom one was married. Three room accommodation in the house in dispute was not reasonably suitable and the claim was bonafide. With these findings he granted an order of eviction in favor of the respondent against the petitioner under proviso (a) to sub-section (1) of the section 14. Petitioner was allowed six months time for vacate the premises.
(5) Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Act.
(6) The correctness of the finding of the learned Controller that the family of the respondent consisted of himself, his wife, five sons and five daughters, one of whom was married, was not assailed before me. In any case, petitioner as R.W.1, admitted that the respondent's family consisted of himself, his wife, four daughters and five sons. The respondent thereforee, required accommodation for himself, his wife, five sons and four unmarried daughters.
(7) Exhibit RW1/1 is the plan filed by the petitioner himself. According to this plan the respondent was in occupation of a room, a kitchan and a terrace on the first floor and another room and common verandah on the ground-floor of the said building. According to the measurements given in the written statement, one of the rooms was 16'x11'' and the other 10' x 8'. This accommodation, judged by and standards, could not be considered reasonably suitable or sufficient for eleven members. The respondent gave the age of the eldest son as 21 years in 1978. Thus some of his children were quite grown up and it is not possible for all of them to live and sleep etc. in these two rooms.
(8) It is correct that the respondent has been allotted a Government quarter in Srinivaspuri, New Delhi. This quarter, however, also has two rooms as is clear from the statement of the petitioner. That accommodation also cannot be considered reasonably suitable for all the eleven members of the family.
(9) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent was a petty clerk and was in the habit of living in small accommodation inasmuch as he never made any efforts to get the premises vacated earlier and according to his own case he was living only in one room prior to 1973. That in my view is of no consequence. The fact that at a particular point of time the landlord was living in an accommodation which was most unsuitable does not mean that he should continue living in the same accommodation, A landlord has- always the right to make himself more comfortable. It has also to be kept in mind that at that time the sons and daughters were not so grown up.
(10) According to the statement of the respondent he, his wife and a daughter had shifted to Government quarter in Srinivaspuri. That again would not make much difference. In the replication it was specifically pleaded that they wanted to go and live with the remaining members of their family in the house in dispute. It is too much to expect of a landlord to split up his family and have two separate residence at a distance of more than ten kilometers from each other. Respondent landlord, in my opinion, was entitled to live along with his sons and daughters.
(11) It was pointed out that the respondent admittedly had let out one room of his quarter in Srinivaspuri to one M.P. Khanduri which showed that his requirement was not bonafide. This contention again has no merit. It was explained that the letting was because the Government had started charging market rate. If a landlord for economic reasons lets out a portion of a quarter in which part of the family is living that would not make his requirement malafide especially when he wanted to live along with the member of his family in the premises in dispute. No case has been made out for interference in revision.
(12) The petition is consequently dismissed. The petitioner is, however, allowed six months time from the date of this order to vacate the premises. Parties are left to bear their own costs.