N.N. Goswamy, J.
(1) This judgment will also dispose of C.R. No. 208 of 983 as both these cases were consolidated by the Additional Rent Controller and were disposed of by a common judgment.
(2) The petitioner-landlord filed a petition for eviction under sections 4(1)(b) and 14(1)(e) read with section 95-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for ;eviction of the respondent. A similar petition under section 14(l)(e) was filed n the second case on the same grounds. It was alleged in the petition that the
(3) The petitions were contested by the tenants. It was pleaded in the written-statement that the petitioner had much more accommodation available to him than the one mentioned by him and his requirements were not bona fide. It was further pleaded that the requirements given by the petitioner are Fanciful and whimsical. According to the respondents the petitioner had i family of himself and his wife and his son was not living with him. The petitioner only wanted to sell the house after getting it vacated and had no intention to live in the disputed premises.
(4) During the pendency of the petition, the respondent-tenants filed an application to the effect that another room with a kitchen and open space had fallen vacant which the petitioner had occupied. This fact was also admitted by the petitioner.
(5) The learned Additional Rent Controller after going through the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner's family consisted of himself and his wife, and his son was not dependent on him for residence inasmuch as he was getting Rs. 600.00 per month as house rent from his employer and was living independently. According to the learned Additional Rent Controller, the premises available to the petitioner were more than sufficient for his requirement.
(6) The findings of the Additional Rent Controller have been assailed before me. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the son of the petitioner was dependent on the petitioner for residence and finding to the contrary is only perverse. After giving my careful consideration to the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail. The petitioner as also his son have deposed that though they are holding separate ration cards but both the ration cards are at the same premises. In fact the ration cards were produced and this fact had not been disputed. Both of them had categorically deposed that they have all along been living together except for ll months when the petitioner's son was at Bombay. Admittedly the petitioner's son is now posted in Delhi and is residing with his father. Merely because he is getting house rent allowance from his employer, it cannot be presumed that he is not dependent on his father for residence. During the pendency of the petitions, the petitioner's son also got married but unfortunately divorce proceedings have been initiated and admittedly his wife is no longer living with him. Thus in all there are three members of the family i.e. the petitioner, his wife and his son besides the requirement of four married daughters of the petitioner. The learned Additional Rent Controller also noticed the fact that the petitioner had sold two houses in Model Basti which he was owning. This conclusion is of no consequence because the first house was sold in 1974 and the second was sold in 1977. The second house had some relevance provided it could be shown that it was sold with vacant possession but there is nothing on record to prove that the same was sold with vacant posseesion.
(7) According to the admitted site plan the petitioner is in occupation of two rooms approximately of 100-110 sq. feet each besides two stores measuring about 5' Xt each on the ground floor, two rooms of the same area i.e. 100-110 sq. feet each on the first floor and one room Along with a kitchen, lavatory and a bath with open space on the second floor and a store and terrace on the top. During the course of arguments the case had to be adjourned from time to time as the parties were negotiating a settlement. The respondent-tenants who are occupying accommodation on the first floor fairly said that one of them was prepared to shift in equal accommodation on the ground-floor and the other was prepared to shift in a smaller accommodation on the second floor. If this proposal was accepted by the petitioner, the petitioner would have got the entire first floor consisting of three rooms measuring 100-110 sq. feet each, one room measuring 16' X 10', one room 7' X 15' besides the two kitchens, the bath and the lavatory. In addition he would have got one room and one store on the ground floor. However, this proposal was not acceptable to the petitioner because he wanted all possible amenities and did not want to lose any portion which was in his possession.
(8) The question for consideration is : whether the accommodation already available with the petitioner is sufficient for his residence and for the residence of his family members Admittedly the petitioner as I have already said has two rooms and two stores on the ground floor, two rooms on the first floor and one room, one kitchen, one bath and one W.C. on the second floor besides a store and terrace on the top. Even if the petitioner wants a separate drawing and dining room, he still has three additional rooms. Out of these three rooms one can be used by him and his wife, the other by his son and the third still remains available for the use of the married daughters when and if they visit him.
(9) In addition to this it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the two rooms on the ground floor which are stated to be under tenancy have also fallen vacant. The petitioner produced the tenant in Court who stated that he had shifted from the premises but had not surrendered possession to the petitioner. It appears that the possession has intentionally not been taken in order to save the present petitions. In any case the bath and W.C. on the ground-floor are independently available to the petitioner because the same are not being used by any one else. The petitioner has also got . common use of bath and W.C. on the first floor and independent bath and W.C. on the second floor. Besides this, the petitioner has got two store rooms which can easily ' be converted into bath or W.C. There is an independent kitchen available to the petitioner also. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the requirements of the petitioner are bona fide.
(10) The learned counsel for the parties referred to various judgments regarding the scope of a revision petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act. It is not necessary to deal with those judgments because it is well settled that if the findings are perverse and are not based on evidence or are based on misreading of evidence, this Court has ample power to interfere in a revision petition. However, in the present case it cannot be said that the findings of the learned Additional Rent Controller suffer from any of these vices.
(11) For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.