Usha Mehra ( 1 ) SINCE a common point of law is involved inboth the petitions being No. CR 17/93 and CR 88/93. I therefore propose tothese by a common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have assailed the impugned order of the Addl. Rent Controller on the ground that their leave to defend application has beenwrongly rejected. The landlord/owner had failed to prove his bona fiderequirement. Landlord s son acquired in 1990 a DDA flat at Vasant Kunj,consisting of three bedrooms which he has let out on rent. This fact has notbeen taken cognizance of by the Court below, hence in the absence of anybona fide requirement the petition ought to have been dismissed. Moreover,the intention of the landlord/owner was to sell the property and not tooccupy himself. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that Khem Chand B. Mankani,respondent is the owner of the premises bearing No. B-54, New Rajindernagar. He is about 81 years old and his wife about 78 years old. Both aresuffering from various ailments. Beside his wife, his son, Mr. B. K. Mankani,his daughter-in-law Smt. Kamlesh and grand children are also residing withhim on the ground floor of this premises which portion consists of two bedrooms, one drawing-cum-dinning room, one store and a kitchen etc. Smt. Sudershan Thukral, the petitioner in C. R. 17/93 is occupying one room,one latrin, one bathroom-cum-latrine and verandah-cum-paraholla on thebarsati floor, whereas M/s. Blaze Advertising (P) Ltd. is occupying two bedrooms, one drawing-cum-dinning room. one store and a kitchen, verandah,one Indian style latrine, one bath-cu-m-latrine. The landlord/owner, respondent herein retired as Section Officer from the Department of Industrialdevelopment in the year 1970-71. His son Mr. B. K. Mankani who had beenresiding with him ever since is working as Senior Engineer at Badarpurthermal Power Station. His daughter-in-law Smt. Kamlesh Mankani isemployed in the Telephone Department. His grand son and daughter arestudying in 7th and 3rd class respectively. Besides these members, who areresiding with him, his daughter Lakshmi Motwani who is married todr. Shyam Lal Motwani are frequent visitors to his house. He and his wifebeing old and ailing constantly need the medical services of their son-in-lawdr. Shyam Lal Motwani who also comes and stays with them in this house. His other son Shri M. K. Mankani, who is at present residing at Bombay withhis family also visits and stays with the respondent at Delhi. He and his wifebeing old and ailing constantly need the medical services of their son-in-lawdr. Shyam Lal Motwani who also comes and stays with them in this house. His other son Shri M. K. Mankani, who is at present residing at Bombay withhis family also visits and stays with the respondent at Delhi. His grand sonharish Mankani son of Shri M. K. Mankani wants to study at Delhi but dueto paucity of accommodation, he is not in a position to stay at Delhi. Underthe circumstances he required the accommodation of both the floors forhimself and for the members of his family. He and his wife are sufferingfrom various ailments. His wife is physically unwell and is under the treatment of the doctors. They being old need the help of their son to look afterthem. Therefore the son with the family has to stay with them as being oldand ailing they cannot live alone. ( 4 ) THE service was affected and leave to defend application was filed inwhich the objections were raised that the need for bona fide requirement wasnot there and that the petition had been filed in order to pressurise the tenantsto enhance the rent. Moreover, the landlord/owner wanted to sell this premises and that is the reason for seeking eviction. In the year 1983 the landlordrequested the tenant to vacate the ground floor because he was sick. On thisrequest petitioner of C. R. 98/93 vacated ground floor and shifted to the firstfloor as a gesture of goodwill. At that time it was agreed that the petitionerwould not be disturbed from the first floor portion. At that time number ofpersons living with landlord were more than presently living. Hence therewas no change in the circumstances, and the family of the respondent/landlord has in fact reduced. He is in occupation of this premises eversince. Hisrequirement has not increased. Moreover he has got three bedrooms on theground floor and not two rooms as alleged. He is the landlord but not theowner of the premises in question. These averments were refuted and deniedby the landlord/owner. ( 5 ) THE Court below came to the conclusion that the present respondent was the owner and the landlord of the premises and that he needed thepremises for his bona fide requirements and that he has no other alternativesuitable accommodation available with him. These averments were refuted and deniedby the landlord/owner. ( 5 ) THE Court below came to the conclusion that the present respondent was the owner and the landlord of the premises and that he needed thepremises for his bona fide requirements and that he has no other alternativesuitable accommodation available with him. Consequently the leave to defendwas rejected and the eviction order was passed by a common order. ( 6 ) IT is against the same that the present revision petitions have beenfiled, la these revision petitions so far as the decision of the Trial Courtregarding the respondent being owner of the property is concerned that hasnot been disputed nor the letting purpose has been challenged, the order hasbeen assailed on the premises that the respondent has sufficient accommodation with him and that he has in fact to sell this property/counsel for thepetitioners drew my attention to a letter dated 9/05/1990 written by therespondent to the petitioner in C. R. 88/93 i,e. M/s. Blaze Advertising Delhi (P) Ltd. By this letter the respondent conveyed his intention to sell the firstand the second floor and before selling the same he gave the first. choice tothe said petitioner to buy these portions. The letter has been reproduced inthe impugned order. Mr. Rawal, Counsel for the petitioner contended thatthis letter clearly indicates the mind of the respondent. He wanted the rentto be increased and since it was not agreed to, he thought of disposing of theproperty in question in 1990. In less than two years of his desire to dispose ofthe property. He filed the present eviction petition so that after getting itvacated he could sell it. Moreover the son of the respondent has acquired athree bed rooms flat of DDA in Vasant Kunj. Number of that flat is notknown but the said son B. K. Mankani after getting possession let out thesame in 1990 itself on rent. Hence the respondent cannot seek the eviction onthe ground of his son s need. This proves the malafide. Mr. Makhija Advocatefor other petitioner stressed that the intention to sell still subsists as thepremises occupied by tenant fetch less price. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Mr. C. L. Narsimhan contended that if therespondent had any malafide intention he would clandestinely disposed of theproperty rather than giving first option to the tenant. This proves the malafide. Mr. Makhija Advocatefor other petitioner stressed that the intention to sell still subsists as thepremises occupied by tenant fetch less price. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Mr. C. L. Narsimhan contended that if therespondent had any malafide intention he would clandestinely disposed of theproperty rather than giving first option to the tenant. This action on the partof the respondent speaks volume about the straightforwardness and genuineness of the owner/landlord. I think there is force in the submission of Counselfor the respondent. The Trial Court rightly analysed that merely becauserespondent thought of selling the property in 1990, no inference can be drawnthat the present need of the respondent is not bona fide. It can happen thatthe owner for the circumstances beyond his control wanted to dispose of theproperty. The reasons could be numarous but subsequently he has changedhis mind. That does not prove that the accommodation with him is sufficientfor himself and for the members of the family. This factor in itself is noground to allow the leave to defend application. Two years period is a longperiod in which much water can flow and the circumstances might havechanged. So many events can happen which have been explained by therespondent. Those have been explained in the counter affidavit filed by him. In the leave to defend application of petitioner of C. R. 17/93. she had nottaken up the ground regarding letter dated 5/05/1990 thereforefurther details were not mentioned by the respondent in his counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed in the eviction petition regarding the tenant ofthe first floor M/s. Blaze Advertising Pvt. Ltd. it was fully explained that dueto paucity of accommodation and since it was difficult to get the premisesvacated, it was thought by him at the relevant time to sell these two portionsin order to have the alternative accommodation to meet his bona fide requirement, Since his children dependent on him were not ready to live separatelyand the petitioner also needed them to live with him as he and his wife beingold and unwell needed their services, therefore their living with him waseminent and urgent. He therefore changed his mind of disposing the propertyand instead filed this eviction petitions. This explanation is quite convincingand appears to be truthful and straightforward. He in fact did not hide hisintentionto sell this house from his tenant. He therefore changed his mind of disposing the propertyand instead filed this eviction petitions. This explanation is quite convincingand appears to be truthful and straightforward. He in fact did not hide hisintentionto sell this house from his tenant. Vide letter dated 5/05/1990he gave first offer to the tenant. The Trial Court, therefore, rightly observedthat if the intention of the landlord was to sell the house he could havedisposed it of in a clandestine manner but he did not do any such thing andi see no reason to disagree with these observations. ( 8 ) THE second ground taken is that the accommodation with therespondent is sufficient. I think this argument is also without force. Thecourt below has dealt in detail the accommodation available with therespondent, his personal requirement and the requirements of his familymembers dependent on him and those who visit him quite frequently. Theconclusion of the Trial Court that the need of the landlord/owner was bonafide. This he held while taking into consideration his family members, his oldage and the illness of his wife, the necessity of his son-in-law staying withthem in order to look after his wife as he happens to be a doctor. Thereforethe respondent requires more accommodation than what is available withhim. The Court below after analysing the evidence came to the conclusionthat the respondent is in occupation of the ground floor consisting of two bedrooms, one drawing-cum-dinning room and not three bed rooms as allegedby the petitioners. Moreover, under Section 25-B (8) the scope and ambit ofthe revisional jurisdiction of this Court is very limited. This Court in itsrevisional jurisdiction cannot reassess the value of evidence or interfere withthe finding of fact. In fact no mistake of law has been pointed out. Thereforethe finding regarding availability of accommodation with the respondent cannot be interfered in this revisional jurisdiction. His need is a question of fact. ( 9 ) AS regard his intention to increase the rent, this argument is alsowithout force because since inception of the tenancy no rent has beenincreased by the respondent. Therefore this is not a tangible plea for whichleave to defend should have been granted. ( 10 ) DURING the course of arguments Mr. Bawal contended that the sonof the petitioner had been allotted three bed rooms house in Vasant Kunj in1990 which he let out on rent. Therefore there is no bona fide requirement asfar as his son is concerned. ( 10 ) DURING the course of arguments Mr. Bawal contended that the sonof the petitioner had been allotted three bed rooms house in Vasant Kunj in1990 which he let out on rent. Therefore there is no bona fide requirement asfar as his son is concerned. The leave to defend application was filed in Feb. 1992 but this ground was not taken hence the Trial Court had no opportunityto decide this issue. Moreover, even before this Court no number on particulars of the house allotted in the name of the son at Vasant Kunj had beenfurnished. Even assuming for the sake of argument that son of the respondenthad got a flat of DDA in Vasant Kunj still to my mind his services arerequired by the old parents. The house of the petitioner is at Rajinder Nagarwhereas according to petitioner respondent s son has got a house at Vasantkunj which is at a far off distance from Rajinder Nagar. The old and ailingcouple has to be looked after by some member of the family, constantly, dayin and day out, and this can only be possible if the son with his family liveswith the parents. Therefore it cannot be said that need of the respondent isnot bona fide. Looking from another angle it can be said that the parentsbeing old and in desperate need of the services of their son and his familywill also have to shift with him in old age, if his son shifts with his familythen they will also have to shift with him. Whereas the accommodation atvasant Kunj is stated to be three bed rooms only, that again will not besufficient for the petitioner and the members of his family because three bedrooms are not sufficient for the whole family. So in either way even presuming the son has got a flat it is not alternative suitable accommodation for thepetitioner member of his family. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and find) no merit in the petitions whichare accordingly dismissed.