Sultan Singh, J.
(1) The tenant in this revision under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order of the Additional Controller dismissing his application for leave to defend and passing an order of eviction against him. The respondent on 16-9-80 filed an eviction petition alleging that the petitioner was his tenant on second floor of property No. A-llj48, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 500 besides water and electricity charges, that he was owner-landlord of the premises let for residential purposes and were required bona fide by him for the residence of his divorce daughter dependent upon him, that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to accommodate her, that the relations between the divorce daughter with her mother, brother and sister were strained, and that he wanted her divorce daughter to live separately and independently in a separate accommodation. The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend alleging that the divorcee daughter was not living with the respondent in the suit property, that she had been living with her elder brother in a house at Pahar Ganj, alleged to be owned by the respondent. The respondent in reply submitted that his divorcee daughter was living with him, that the house at Pahar Ganj was rented premises consisting of one room in occupation of Ins son with his family. The Additional Controller by the impugned order dismissed the application for leave to defend and passed the order of eviction. Hence this revision.
(2) This revision was filed on 21-4-81. The petitioner has filed an application (C.M. 2665/82) for bringing on record subsequent facts wherein he alleges that one Mr. Ali was in occupation of a room on first floor which has since been vacated and has been in occupation of the divorcee daughter, that the respondent's wife owns a house in B Block at Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and an application for eviction of the tenant occupying the Malviya Nagar house was pending. The learned counsel for the respondent in reply submits that Shri V. Sethumadhavan and Mumtaz. Ali both bechelors were residing only in one room 13'-9'X 9'-3' on first floor of the suit house which was vacated by them in April 1981, that his wife owns a house in Malviya Nagar which was in occupation of a tenant and an order of eviction has been passed on ground of non-payment of rent and re-building of the premises i.e. under section. 14(1) (a) and (g) of the Act, that the said house was not worth habitable, and he wishes his divorcee daughter to live with him in the same house separately and independently. The respondent and his divorcee daughter have also filed affidavits. 'The divorcee daughter has a female child aged four years. She is M.A. and diploma holder in Russian Language. She is owner of car No. Dha 7854. She wants to live separately and independently from his father, that she has strained relations with her mother and brother. The father also desires her to live separately. It has been further deposed on affidavit that the divorcee daughter is in possession of various dowry articles e.g. T.V. set, Refrigerator, Cooler of daily use. The size of the room on the first floor is only 13'-9' 9'-3' without the facility of any kitchen, bath and W.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these facts require evidence. I do not agree. The family of the respondent consists of himself, his wife, one unmarried daughter and one unmarried son besides the divorcee daughter. The ground floor consists of three bad rooms drawing/dining, kitchen, bath and W.C. The three bed rooms are required by the respondent his wife, unmarried son and the unmarried daughter. Thus there is no living accommodation on the ground floor where. the divorcee and her child could be accommodated. The respondent approached the Court with a specific requirement that her daughter who has divorced on 2.1-2-80 required a separate and independent accommodation for her living. There is one room on first floor without kitchen, bath W.C. which is insufficient for the residence of the divorcee daughter, her four year old- child and her dowry articles. After taking into consideration subsequent facts it is clear that the divorcee daughter has not been staying at Pahar Ganj, that the premises at Pahar Ganj are tenanted premises in occupation of his son with family.
(3) The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the house at Malviya Nagar owned by the respondents wife is available. The respondent has deposed that he wants her daughter to live in the same house and that the house at Malviya Nager though owned by his wife requires re-building which was one of the grounds on the basis of which the eviction order was passed against the tenant occupying the said house. After giving my careful consideration to the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no disputed fact requiring evidence for passing an order of eviction under section 14(1)(c) of the Act. The ownership and the purpose of letting is not disputed. A copy of the decree for divorce is on the record so that there can not be any dispute that the respondent has a divorce daughter. The only question is of bona fide. Apparently there are no mala fides and none has been alleged against the respondent. The room on first floor is without the facility of kitchen, bath, W.C. and is not suitable in the circumstances of the case. The divorcee daughter is in possession of various article as disclosed in the affidavit. The respondent has no other accommodation except the suit premises on second floor for the separate and independent residence of the divorcee daughter and her four years child besides for keeping the various other items of dowry belonging to her. I thereforee, hold that the petitioner is not entitled to leave to defend. The application for leave to defend was dismissed by the Additional Controller but even after taking into consideration the subsequent facts as alleged by the petitioner, I am of the view that the divorcee daughter bona fide requires the suit premises. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner is granted one month to vacate the premises.