S.B. Wad, J.
(1) This Civil Revision is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dated 31-1-1983 whereby he dismissed the petition of the petitioner under Section 14(l)(e) on the ground that the petitioner has not proved his ownership of the house in question, namely, A-467, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The Additional Rent Controller had held that the petitioner bad proved that the premises were let out for residential purpose only and that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation and the premises were bona fide required by him for his residential purposes for himself and for his family.
(2) The petitioner had filed a suit for possession and damages against the present respondent being suit No. 666 of 1970 in the Court of Shri Gulab Tulsiyani, Sub-Judge, Delhi. In the said suit the respondent had challenged the ownership of the petitioner. The petitioner's claim was that his wife Snt. Pritam Kaur had purchased this suit property from the Rehabilitation Department and by a Will dated 18th May, 1967 the property was transferred to the petitioner. His wife died on 20.8.1967. The learned Sub-Judge took the evidence on the question of the Will and came to the conclusion that the Will was proved and the petitioner had become the owner of the property. This judgment had become final. These facts are admitted by the respondents in his evidence. The counsel for the respondent however, submits that after the Will was executed in favor of the petitioner he had not got the house mutated in his name in the records of the Rehabilitation Department and, thereforee, he is not an owner for the purposes of Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act. This submission of the counsel for the respondent is wholly misconceived, as between the tenant and the landlord/owner it is . sufficient to show that in civil law the owner's title is recognised. Whether the Rehabilitation Ministry has mutated the name of the petitioner is not a matter between the tenant and the owner but it is a matter between the owner and the Rehabilitation Department. The learned Additional Rent Controller has not even looked to the certified copy of the judgment in Suit No. 666/70 produced before me, by the petitioner. The finding that the petitioner has not proved his ownership of the house in question is, thereforee, wrong and set aside.
(3) As regards the bonafide requirement of the petitioner, the respondent had admitted in his evidence that there are nine members in the petitioner's family and that they were all residing in the suit premises. He further admitted that there is no suitable accommodation with the petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that two sons of the petitioner Rajpal Singh and Har Kishan were allotted separate lands in lieu of their jhuggies and that they were residing elsewhere. The respondent had, however, himself admitted that when the petition was filed the said two sons were living with the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent further submits that at the time of the filing of the present petition the said two sons had sold their properties and they are now living with the petitioner. The learned Addl. Rent Controller has correctly held that they were staying in the suit premises since 11-11-1978, while the petition for eviction was filed in 1980. This argument is without any substance and is, thereforee, rejected. A ration card has been produced showing the nine members staying in the suit premises. A plan was produced by the petitioner before the Rent Controller. No plan was produced by the respondent to confront or to show and justify his assertion that there are six rooms in the possession of the petitioner and his family. There is one puce room on the barsati, one tin shed and a kitchen. Even if the claim of the respondent is to be accepted there are two rooms on the first floor and a kitchen. The petitioner has stated that some of his family members sleep in the kitchen due to paucity of accommodation. Considering the admitted members of the family and the accommodation, the requirement of the petitioner is bona fide and the Addl. Rent Controller is quite right in holding so. It is vaguely challenged that another son of the petitioner is also married but he is staying elsewhere. No particulars. of the accommodation are given by the respondent and the suggestion in this respect is denied by the petitioner in his cross-examination. It is also suggested that the premises in question were let out for the commercial purposes to the respondent and that be was carrying on the business of the tailoring there. From the evidence it is clear that the house in question is a residential house and the argument that the premises were let out to the respondent for commercial purposes is without any substance or merit. The Addl. Rent Controller was, thereforee, right in holding that the house was let out for residential purposes only. The order of the Rent Controller so far as he has held that the petitioner has not proved his ownership is set aside. The petition under section 14(1)(e) succeeds. The order of the Addl. Rent Controller is set aside. However, on the facts of this case, there will be no order as to costs. The respondent-tenant shall vacate the premises on or before 10th October, 1985.