16/58 Gali No.1, Joshi Road, Delhi.
He claimed that they did number own any other residential accommodation in Delhi.
The Rent Controller also held that daughters were number residing with the original landlord.
During the pendency of this Revision before the High Court, the original landlord died.
It was also held that the landlord had sufficient number of room in his possession to meet his requirement.
The present Respondent, being his son, was brought on record.
16/57 Gali No.
This petition was on the ground of bonafide requirement.
The High Court held that the requirement of the landlord was bonafide.
b that the daughters did number stay with the father as they were married and they stayed with their husbands and c that the Landlord already had 4 bed rooms in his possession.
The High Court set aside the order of the Rent Controller and passed an order of eviction against the Appellant.
He claimed that he had two bed rooms and a verandah on the ground floor of the premises and his family companysisted of himself, his wife, his son the present Respondent , two daughters and their families.
1, Joshi Road, Delhi as well as at Basant Road.
The High Court, by the impugned order dated 12th November, 1999, allowed the Revision.
The defence of the Appellant was a that the Landlord had other suitable residential accommodation at No.
He, therefore, sought eviction of the Appellant from the first floor of the premises bearing No.
1, Joshi Road, Delhi and at Basant Road, Pahar Ganj.
Being aggrieved by this decision, the landlord filed a Revision in the High Court.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T S. N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against an Order dated 12th November, 1999.
The Rent Controller by his judgment dated 24th February, 1993 dismissed the eviction petition.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The father of the Respondent was the landlord of the premises in question.
He filed an eviction petition under Section 14 1 e of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
