D. R. Khanna ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision is directed against an orderdated 3-3-1981, of Mr. Kuldip Singh, III Additional Rent Controller, whereby he dismissed the petition moved by Smt. Kamla Tandon under Section14 (l) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for ejectmentof Brij Kishore Kapoor, tenant, from the ground floor of the demisedpremises in house No. 4227, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The same iscomprised of two rooms, one store, kitchen, latrine with compound and amiani. The first floor thereof consisting of two rooms, store, kitchen andbath is already in possession of the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE respondent is an old tenant there at the rent of Rs. 125. 00 permonth. The petitioner purchased the property from the previous owner in1969. At present she is staying in house No. 4764, Darya Ganj, Delhi, which issaid to belong to her father-in-law who has a big family consisting of as many as 20 members. She has, however, been according to her, asked by her father-in-law to shift to her own house. Her own family is comprised of herhusband, five daughters, two of whom are married, and one son. The husbandis a Chartered Accountant of 27 year s standing, and the petitioner is also anincome tax payee from the business known as "rangnath Publication" saidto be carried on from the first floor of the property in dispute. ( 3 ) THE respondent s case before the Rent Controller was that thepetitioner was not living with other members of her father-in-law s family,but was exclusively occupying the house No. 4764, Darya Ganj. The same,it was pleaded, has enough accommodation for the petitioner s requirements. As regards the father-in law, and his other members of the family, they arestated to be residing in a house in Dharampura. It was denied that anypublication business was being run from the first floor of the property indispute. Rather it has been stated that the same is lying vacant, with even the electric connection having been disconnected. It was got vacated in 1971. ( 4 ) THE learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence that had been led before him, came to the conclusion that the premises in disputewere actually let out to the respondent for residential purpose, and not forresidence-cum-business as asserted by him. It was got vacated in 1971. ( 4 ) THE learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence that had been led before him, came to the conclusion that the premises in disputewere actually let out to the respondent for residential purpose, and not forresidence-cum-business as asserted by him. It was at the same time foundthat the petitioner s father-in-law and his family members were staying inthe house at Dharampura, and that the petitioner and her family wereentirely occupying the property No. 4764, Darya Ganj. The accommodationin her possession there, was found sufficient. As such the petition forejectment was dismissed. ( 5 ) THE controversy raised in this revision concerns the finding thatthe petitioner has sufficient accommodation already in her possession forresidence. In this regard, reference has been made to three properties. Onehas been at Dharampura, which has since long been in possession of the petitioner s father-in-law. He and the members of his family are enrolledas voters from that property. They are also drawing their rations fromthere. No plan of this property has been filed, nor the father-in-lawexmined. It was, however, sought to be brought out by the petitioner thatthe same is a small property covering an area of about 70 sq. yds. , and thatit was obtained on lease by the grand father of the petitioner s husband, andthat his uncles are also as such interested and entitled to its benefit. Theproperty No. 4764, Darya Ganj where the petitioner is at present residing,has been shown in plan Ex. A. 2 filed on record. The same shows that it hastwo rooms on the ground floor along with a gallary, latrine and some openspace. The first floor has one big room of 7 ft. x 16 ft, a small temporaryroom, a store, bath and kitchen. The second floor has three rooms and asmall store. There is thus only one kitchen in the room. The petitionercontends that she is in occupation of only one room in this property which isquite insufficient for the requirements of the family and that now her father- in-law has required her to vacate the same and shift to her own house. Therest of this property is stated to be occupied by her father-in-law along witha large number of family members The father-in-law has thus hiswife, four other sons apart from the petitioner s husband, three of whom aremarried and have their families. Therest of this property is stated to be occupied by her father-in-law along witha large number of family members The father-in-law has thus hiswife, four other sons apart from the petitioner s husband, three of whom aremarried and have their families. One of them is a chartered accountant andhaving his office on a ground floor room. of the property. There are threedaughters as well who are married and quite often come to the parentshouse and some accommodation is required for them too. ( 6 ) IN the grounds of revision it is pointed out that the observation ofthe Additional Rent Controller that all the family members of the petitioner sfather-in-law have their votes enrolled from the house at Dharampura is notcorrect and this is borne out from the copies of electoral rolls as well. Theywere said to be not admitted by the Additional Rent Controller. The landedarea of Dharampura house is stated to be 70 sq. yds only and the same canhardly accommodate the large family of father-in-law. ( 7 ) FROM the side of the respondent, on the other hand, it has beenpleaded that the petitioner had failed to examine her father-in-law in supportof the contention that he has required her to vacate his house, nor it shownthat he is the exclusive owner thereof. No plan of the Dharampura househas besides been filed. Rather the testimony of the petitioner s brother-in-lawwho had been examined as her witness showed that the family members ofthe father-in-law are enrolled as voters from Dharampura house and holdtheir ration cards with the address of that house. This itself shows that theyare residing there. Morever, it is pointed out that the petitioner s husbandstated that he is separated from his father and brothers. If that is so it isnot clear now the separated brothers and parents are independently operatingtheir kitchens from Darya Ganj property when it has only one kitchen there. All these assertions it is pleaded are belied by the circumstances brought onrecord. The assessment of evidence by the learned Additional Rent Controller it is pleaded has been fair and reasonable, and this Court in revisionaljurisdiction should not interfere in the same in any manner. All these assertions it is pleaded are belied by the circumstances brought onrecord. The assessment of evidence by the learned Additional Rent Controller it is pleaded has been fair and reasonable, and this Court in revisionaljurisdiction should not interfere in the same in any manner. ( 8 ) THERE can be no quarrel with the proposition that where a personis living along with his family in the house of his father who has otherchildren and their families as well, he can seek to set up his independentestablishment in a house of his own, or that belonging to his spouse ordependent child. With the passage of time when family is grown andfinancial status of individual members improve, there is nothing unusual insons desiring their separate independent establishments and acquiring theirown identities. This is all the more so where each son has independentsource of income, or different avocation in life. Large joint Hindu familiesperhaps in their jointness bring in community spirit and a sort of minisocialism within the family bonds where allpool their resources and thenenjoy them jointly to the benefit of all. However, with concepts of fast changing and the smaller families seeking autonomy and individuality of their own,the old systems and traditions cannot continue to be enforced and requiredto be abided. Not unoften frictions and strifes over-take the mutuality andadjustment necessary for the success of larger joint Hindu families. XXIII (1983) D. L. T. (S. N.) 6, Sat Pal v. Nand Kishore, on which reliance hasbeen placed by the respondent, is distinguishable inasmuch as there awidower father who was living with his son s family wanted the eviction ofa tenant of another portion of the same property on some fanciful groundand when it had been found that some time earlier letting out of anotherportion had been effected. ( 9 ) NOW in the present case, if the house No. 4764, Darya Ganj,where the petitioner is residing, belongs to her father-in-law, and if he hasasked her to vacate the same and shift to her own house, not much exceptioncan be taken to her seeking eviction of the respondent from her house. Thepetitioner s husband is not the only son of her father-in-law. There areseveral other sons who are married and have families of their own. Thepetitioner s husband is not the only son of her father-in-law. There areseveral other sons who are married and have families of their own. A fathermay not like to be indulgent to one son over others and allow him to occupya much larger portion of his house than he should otherwise be entitled toconsidering the extent of the family. He may like the house to be proportionately distributed for purposes of occupation by different members ofthe larger family. In such an eventuality, one of the sons owning a househimself or through his spouse seeking to shift to that house, cannot be takenexception to. After all one. earns and buys or builds a house not to rot in aminimal space insufficient by any reasonable standards, or be a burden onothers or continue resigning himself to the grace or courtesy of others eventhough they may be near relations. He has a right to make himself comfortable and acquire his own independence, dignity and status provided thedemands are otherwise not manifestly extravagant or fanciful. ( 10 ) AT the same time, where a son has been allowed by his father tooccupy his house without demur, and the same is sufficient for his requirements, and there is nothing to show that the father has required him tovacate or make room for other children, it cannot be said that the former sonseeking eviction of a tenant from his own house, has no reasonably suitableresidential accommodation with him. Unfortunately the present case, at least from what has been brought on record, tends to fall in this category. The father has not been examined to depose that he is the owner of propertyno. 4764, Darya Ganj, and he wants the petitioner and her family to shiftfrom there or at least make room for his other sons. His of course is alargefamily, and if all the members are taken into consideration that propertyitself may fall short of their requirements. The petitioner would in thatcase have justifiable ground to seek shifting to her own house. However, themanner in which the case has been conducted in the trial court, and theevidence that has been placed on record, show that the assessment of thecircumstances by the learned Additional Rent Controller is not altogetherunreasonable as to justify interference in this revision. The petitioner would in thatcase have justifiable ground to seek shifting to her own house. However, themanner in which the case has been conducted in the trial court, and theevidence that has been placed on record, show that the assessment of thecircumstances by the learned Additional Rent Controller is not altogetherunreasonable as to justify interference in this revision. He has come to theview from the evidence that the petitioner s father-in-law and the othermembers of the family are residing in Dharampura house where they werenot only enrolled as voters, but also draw their rations. Perhaps there maybe some truth that the Dharampura house is a small one built over a plot ofland measuring 70 sq. yds. The petitioner could have filed a plan of thatproperty, or at least the father-in-law could have deposed that his ownbrothers were also in occupation of part thereof. None of this has been done. The learned Additional Rent Controller has also taken note of the existenceof only one kitchen in house No. 4764, Darya Ganj, and in case the father-in-law and his sons are all separate, and having their independent establishments, it is not shown how they are just managing on with one kitchen. Suffice it to say that in the assessment of the entirity of the circumstances,the learned Additional Rent Controller has not committed any gross illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error as held in the case Kaaturilal Nandraj v. Bakshi Ram, XIX (1981) D. L. T. 329. ( 11 ) DURING the course of the hearing of this revision it was felt thatperhaps the petitioner has a sound case to seek eviction of the respondent ifproper material had been placed on record. Two courses were then open. One was to remand the case back and permit the petitioner to examine herfather-in-law, and also produce a plan of the property at Dharampura, andfurther tender copies of the electoral rolls and ration cards. However, it isnow well settled that power of remand cannot beexercised to enable a partyto fill up the lacuna in evidence and place material which it could have wellproduced during the course of trial. This course, therefore, could not resorted to. The other was that the petitioner could be allowed to withdraw thepetition with permission to move a fresh one. The respondent was agreeable to this. For reasons best known to the petitioner, she declined toproceed with this course. This course, therefore, could not resorted to. The other was that the petitioner could be allowed to withdraw thepetition with permission to move a fresh one. The respondent was agreeable to this. For reasons best known to the petitioner, she declined toproceed with this course. In the circumstances, I have no other course butto reject this revision. ( 12 ) BEFORE concluding, reference may be made to certain decisionsrelied upon by the petitioner. One of them has been AIR 1953 Nagpur 146,kewalchand Kastoorchand v Samirmal Jaini and another, in which it wasobserved that voter s list has practically no evidentiary value. Theseobservations happened to be made where there appeared some printing errorof the number of the house where the voter was residing. That has not beenthe position in the present case as the petitioner s brother-in-law admittedthat they are enrolled as voters from the Dharampura house. XX (1981)D. L. T. 176 M/s. J. K. Industries Ltd. v. Lt. Col. M. M. Lol, and XIX (1981) Delhi Law Times 271 (S. C.), Gurbachan Singh v. Bajpal, nextrelied upon by the petitioner are to the effect that where a landlord isoccupying a premises as a mere licensee or the courtesy of the owner thereof,and has no right of his own to stay there, he cannot be debarred from seekingeviction of the tenant from his own house. I am in respectful agreementwith these decisions, and have already made observations on similar lineabove. However, in the present case, the petitioner s husband who has allthrough lived in the Daryaganj house, reared up his children, married histwo daughters, cannot now suddenly turn round and say that his stay hasbeen just as a matter of courtesy of his father. He has been a Charteredaccountant having good income and still reconciled to his stay there findingthat to be suitable for his requirements. The complexion, however, wouldhave been different had the father been examined and stated that he wantedthe petitioner and her husband to vacate or at least make room for thefamilies of his other sons. ( 13 ) AS a result, I am constrained to reject this petition. No orderas to costs.