G. C. Jain. J. ( 1 ) THIS petition by the tenant under Section 25b (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ) is directed against the order of the Addl. Rent Controller, dated March 2, 1985 directing his eviction from the premises in dispute. ( 2 ) THE dispute is in respect of a portion of property No. 4298, Arya Pura, Subzimandi. Delhi consisting of one room and a verandah in front thereof. The petitioner Prem Nath was in occupation of the said premises as a tenant under the landlord 0m Prakash on a monthly rent of Rs. 11. 40. He is admittedly an old tenant. ( 3 ) ON September 8, 1981 the landlord sought his eviction from the premises in dispute on the allegation that he was the owner of the said premises and the same had been let out for residential purpose. His family consisted of himself, his wife an unmarried son aged 20 years and an unmarried daughter aged 16 years. He was in occupation of one room measuring 16 X 8 , a court yard and a kitchen on the first floor and the barasati measuring 9 x9 and open terrace on the second floor which accommodation was not reasonably suitable for him and members of his family dependent on him and be had no other reasonably suitable accommodation and bonafide required ihe premises in dispute. ( 4 ) THE tenant resisted the petition on a variety of pleas. The pleas raised were that the petition was not maintainable without the requisite permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (improvement and Clearance) Act,-the petition was for partial eviction and therefore not maintainable ; the landlord was not the owner of the premises in dispute and the same had been let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes ; and that the landlord was a class IV employee and was in occupation of 12 rooms, six on the ground floor, one on the mezzanine floor, two rooms on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor which accommodation was reasonable suitable and his claim was not bonafide. ( 5 ) LEARNED Addl. ( 5 ) LEARNED Addl. Controller, vide his impugned order, held that the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and 429 Clearance) Act were not attracted to this petition ; the petition was not for partial eviction ; the landlord was the owner of the premises and that the letting purpose was residential. He further held that the landlord was in possession of two rooms, two stores, two kitchens on the first floor and one barasati with tin roof on the second floor which accommodation was not reasonably suitable for the landlord and his family members consisting of his wife, grown up son and a daughter and his claim was bonafide. With these findings he directed the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute. The tenant allowed six months time to vacate the premises. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner/tenant has filed this petition. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the tenant has not assailed the findings of the learned Add!. Controller except the finding regarding the nonavailability of a reasonably suitable accommodation and bonafide requirement The submission of the learned counsel is that the barsati on the second floor was a regular room and not a tin shed as held by the learned Addl. Controller. He further contended that the room on the mezzanine floor was a regular room and it was not taken into consideration. Besides this accommodation the landlord was in occupation of six rooms on the ground floor out of which he was using two rooms for commercial purpose and the four rooms were available to him. ( 7 ) IGNORING the accommodation on the ground floor which, in my view is meant for commercial use, the landlord was admittedly in possession of a room on the mezzanine floor. The tenant filed a plan Ex. R-1. According to this plan this room measures about 9 X 9 . Its height was also 9 ft. Correctness of this part of the plan was not disputed by the landlord in his statement. Thus the room on the mezzanine floor, in my view, was a regular room and could be used for residence. ( 8 ) TO the eviction petition the case set up by the landlord was that he was in possession of barsati measuring 9 X 9 besides terrace on the second floor. Thus the room on the mezzanine floor, in my view, was a regular room and could be used for residence. ( 8 ) TO the eviction petition the case set up by the landlord was that he was in possession of barsati measuring 9 X 9 besides terrace on the second floor. No plea was raised that the barsati was a tin shed and could not be used for residence. Even in his statement the landlord stated that he was in possession of a baisati on the second floor. He nowhere stated that it was a tin shed. The tenant in his statement recorded on January 9, 1985 has stated that the room on the second floor in occupation of the landlords, was a pacca room. Thus there was no evidence to show that the room on the second floor in occupation of the landlord was a tin shed or had a tin roof. This finding of the learned Addl. Controller, thus, was based on no evidence. The landlord was thus in occupation of the room on the mezzanine floor, two rooms on the first floor, and one room on the second floor besides stores etc. This accommodation for a family of four members was reasonably suitable keeping in view the status of the landlord who was admittedly a class IV employee in the Railways. The finding of the learned Addl. Controller to the contrary cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) THE landlord having failed to prove that he was not in occupation of reasonably suitable accommodation was not entitled-to eviction under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act. I, therefore, allow the petition, set aside the impugned order and instead dismiss the application filed by the landlord. The parties are left to bear their own costs.