D.R. Khanna, J.
(1) A petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenant, S.K. Sen, from premises constituting of first floor of X-6, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, was brought by the owner-landlady Smt. Kunwarani Chandra Kunwar, pleading that she bona fide required the same for her residence. The tenant contested the petition and sought permission to defend which was granted. Later, however, the ejectment was allowed by Shri J.D. Kapur, Rent Controller, Delhi, after considering the evidence which both the sides had led. The tenant now feeling aggrieved has moved the present revision before this Court.
(2) I have heard both the sides and considered the entire evidence on record. In my opinion, no interference is called for in the assessment of evidence by the learned Rent Controller. He has some to the conclusion that the landlady is the owner of the premises, and has no suitable accommodation in her possession and further that she, in fact, bona fide requires the premises for her family's residence. These are essentially factual appraisements, and I do not see any legal implications involved in them which should justify interference in the revision. No material evidence has been ignored nor any extraneous circumstance taken into account.
(3) At the time when the eviction petition was moved, the landlady was residing with her husband at premises No. D-151 defense Colony, New Delhi. This had been allotted to her husband by his employer, the Indian Oil Corporation, when he was employed with that Corporation as Chief Vigilance Officer. His employment was due to expire there on 30.4.1978. He, however, got extension up to 31.3.1979. Ever since then he and his wife have been residing at Jaipur, the place to which they orginally belong, for want of suitable accommodation in Delhi. According to them, they want to settle in Delhi where they have this property. At Jaipur they are not owning any property.
(4) The defense set up by the tenant was that he was let out the premises in dispute on 1.3.1975 at Rs.800.00 per month. Prior to that the Engineers India Ltd. was the tenant there at Rs. 600.00 per month. This concern shifted to the ground floor from that date at the rent of Rs. 1,250.00 per month; while earlier the landlady was getting Rs. l,100.00 per month only for that floor. From these circumstances, it was sought to be urged that the landlady was keen for higher rent, and the present petition was also motivated for that purpose.
(5) It was also pointed out that the second floor of the property in dispute covering an area measuring 37' X 15' fell vacant by the end of 1977, and remained in possession of the landlady. The same, it was urged, could well suffice her requirements. The landlady admitted that this second floor has been in her possession from the time it was vacated in 1977, but asserted that it was in the nature of Barasati, and was least suitable for her family's requirements, considering the status and the life that they had led in the past.
(6) It need hardly be impressed that an owner-landlord is the best judge of his requirements, and so long as his judgment is not fanciful or mala fide, the Court should not substitute its own opinion. Similarly, he has a right to make himself comfortable. What is the reasonable requirement of a person depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule or an inflexible approach can be adopted which must govern each and every case. The nature of the accommodation available, the status and standard of living to which the person has been accustomed to and the' extent of his family are some of the broad considerations which have to be kept in view. In the cirumstances when the landlady in the present case has stated that the second floor accommodation in her possession, which is more in the form of a Barsati with attached bath and kitchen, is not suitable and sufficient for her requirements, the same cannot be treated as a mala fide stand. It would not bejust to require her to adjust in a small accommodation which is open to the hazards of the sun and rain in odd seasons, and allow the main building to remain with the tenants. After all the purpose and satisfaction of owning a house are of no avail if one has just to be a by stander and required to adjust on self in a makeshift arrangement.
(7) The evidence has come on the record that the petitioner has no accommodation of her own at Jaipur, and has to live there because of non-availability of suitable accommodation in Delhi. The circumstance that she has kept the Barsati vacant, and wants to avail that along with the first floor from which eviction is being sought, shows that she is not motivated to enjoy higher rents only. In any case, if she later acts in a manner as to belie the representation made that she intends occupying the premises and lets it out at higher rent, recourse is available to the tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act to seek delivery back of the possession.
(8) The mere fact that in the year 1975 the landlady charged higher rents for the first and second floor when they fell vacant, should not justify rejection of her present claim, when it is otherwise found to be bona fide. The landlady's family is, at present, constituted of her husband, one married son and a married daughter. The latter two are, of course, at present residing outside Delhi. They, however, according to them, do visit them off and on.
(9) As regards the status of the landlady, it has been brought out that her husband was earlier a Deputy Inspector-General of Police in Rajasthan, and belongs to a Jagirdar family.
(10) Considering the totality of the circumstances, I do not find any force in this revision, much less that any infirmity in law or error in the exercise of jurisdiction exists in the present case.
(11) The revision is, thereforee, rejected with costs. The petitioner-tenant, however, is allowed three months' time to vacate the premises.