USHA MEHRA, J. ( 1 ) REVISION petitioner has assailed the judgement of Addl. Rent Controller whereby he granted an eviction order in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that Sunder Lal Taneja, respondent herein, is the owner/ landlord of premises No. J-73, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The ground floor of said premises, comprising of four rooms, one kitchen, one bath, latrine and a courtyard were let out for residential purposes to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 350. 00 exclusive of water and electricity, which rent was subsequently increased in October, 1984 tors. 500. 00 per month. So far as the landlord is concerned, his family consists of himself, his wife, his married son Jitender and his wife. Apart from that, his other unmarried son Sanjay Taneja is also residing with him. The wife of his deceased s son Smt. Chanchal Taneja and his grand daughter, Pooja Taneja. aged about 11 years were earlier residing with him but had to shiftto her parents house under compelling circumstances. Now his daughter-in-law and grand daughter want to shift back and live in this house. The respondent is a man of means having his own farm house in Rajasthan and also carries on transport business. He is in possession of four rooms on the first floor of the suit property along with a room at the barsati floor. This accommodation according to the respondent, is not sufficient for him and the members of his family dependent on him. He suffered heart ailments and his wife finds it difficult to climb the stairs, therefore, they also need the accommodation on the ground floor. His son Sanjay Taneja is of marriageable age. Sanjay also requires an independent room for himself, hence the accommodation with the respondent is not sufficient. ( 3 ) LEAVE to contest was sought by the present petitioner which was granted. In the written statement, lie took the plea that the respondent is neither the owner r the landlord of the premises in question. Petitioner denied that the respondent has no other reasonable suitable accommodation for himself and for the members of his family, He denied that the respondent required the premises bonafide. The accommodation with the landlord is sufficient. In the written statement, lie took the plea that the respondent is neither the owner r the landlord of the premises in question. Petitioner denied that the respondent has no other reasonable suitable accommodation for himself and for the members of his family, He denied that the respondent required the premises bonafide. The accommodation with the landlord is sufficient. Evidence was led and ultimately on the basis of the p73 evidence, a decree for eviction has been passed against the petitioner holding that the respondent is the landlord/owner of the premises and he requires the premises bonafide for himself and for the members of his family. ( 4 ) IT is against this order that the present revision has been filed inter alia on the ground that Addl. Rent Controller has not taken into consideration the two rooms on the Barsati floor which has a toilet and a kitchen provision. Moreover, the relationship of the respondent with his daughter-in-law, Smt. Chanchal had been strained. This fact has not been taken into consideration. No plan of the Barsati floor had been filed. Moreover, the landlord/respondent herein resides at Jaipur, Rajasthan and not at Delhi hence his needs are not bonafide. Moreover part of first floor was let out to one Mr. Rana, which amply proves that the landlord does not require additional accommodation. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, no plan of the Barsati floor had been placed on record, but the petitioner appearing as R. W. I admitted that on the Barsati floor the kitchen. bathroom and WC were temporarily built. Bathroom and WC are without roof. Whereas the roof of the kitchen is covered with asbesto sheets. The length and breadth of the room on the second flooris 12 x 10 . This room is partitioned into two. On the basis of this admission on the part of the tenant which amply proves that the Barsati floor i. e. the second floor cannot be used for residential purposes as as it has no proper amenities for being used as residence. The court below rightly came to the conclusion that the said room on Barsati floor being not provided with proper kitchen, bathroom and WC facilities hence cannot be used for residence. I see no reason to disagree with. these observations of the trial court. The court below rightly came to the conclusion that the said room on Barsati floor being not provided with proper kitchen, bathroom and WC facilities hence cannot be used for residence. I see no reason to disagree with. these observations of the trial court. There being no regular toilet, bathroom, kitchen on the Barsati floor, the temporarily provided provision cannot be called facilities necessary for proper inhabitation. Barsati floor cannot be used as living room so held in the cases of ISmt. Waryam Kaur Vs. K. K. Gandhi (since deceased) through his LRs. reported in AIR 1988 Delhi 198 and R. K. Bhatnagar Vs. Smt. Sushila Bhargava and another reported in AIR 1987 Delhi page 363. I also find no merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that earlier a tenant by the name of Mr. A. S. Rana was inducted as a tenant on Barsati floor. To arrive at this conclusion reference can be bad to the uncontroverted and unrebutted testimony of A. W. I who categorically stated that there is only one room on the Barsati floor which has been partitioned into a store and a room and there is no kitchen on the Barsati floor. Mr. Rana was allowed tokeep his luggage in the Barsati floor for one month without paying any rent. In fact this Mr. Rana was a tenant in respect of two rooms on the first floor. When he vacated the first floor he was having some difficulty in shifting his luggage to the new house, he therefore, was permitted to keep his luggage on the Barsati floor and thus stayed for a month. This fact does not prove that the Barsati floor can be used for inhabitance purposes. He further testified that thebarsati floor is in his possession and he keeps his cots and other goods in the same. There is no cross examination on this part of his testimony nor the present petitioner appearing as R. W. I denied this assertion of the respondent. For the above reasons I find no merits in the contention of the petitioner and see no reason to disagree with the observation of the trial court on this regard. There is no cross examination on this part of his testimony nor the present petitioner appearing as R. W. I denied this assertion of the respondent. For the above reasons I find no merits in the contention of the petitioner and see no reason to disagree with the observation of the trial court on this regard. ( 6 ) AS regard the plea of the petitioner that the respondent has strained relations with his daughter-in-law, I find force in these submission, because the daughter-in-law, Smt. Chanchal Taneja hereself appeared in the witness box as A. W. 4. In no uncertain words she supported the case of the respondent A. W. I. I see no reason to disagree with the observation of the trial court in this regard. ( 7 ) AS regard the contention of the petitioner that there were strained relations between the respondent and his daughter-in-law, I find no force in these submissions, because the daughter-in-law, Smt. Chanchal Taneja herself appeared in the wilness box as A. W. 4. In no uncertain words she supported the case of the respondent. According to her she bad been living in this house upto the year 1986, and thereafter, her brother-in-law got married. On account of the paucity of accommodation she had to give up that room and shifted to her parent s house. That is precisely what respondent stated, that under compelling circumstances his daugter-in-law had to go for her parents house. She appearing as A. W. 4 has explained the compelling circumstances. On this there is no cross examination. She rather indicated that she has to shift in this house because there is a shortage of accommodation at her parent s house. Her brother s children have grown up and require the accommodation which is in her possession. Therefore she has to shift to her matrimonial home. I see no reason why she should not be allowed to live in her matrimonial home along with her daughter. Her need, to my mind, is the need of the respondent/landlord/owner who happens to be her father-in-law. She was operated for ulsar and had been suffering from angina pain . She has been adviced to stay on the ground floor. She also testified that there is no kitchen or toilet on the Barsati floor and after her marriage she has never seen Barsati floor being used for residential purposes. She was operated for ulsar and had been suffering from angina pain . She has been adviced to stay on the ground floor. She also testified that there is no kitchen or toilet on the Barsati floor and after her marriage she has never seen Barsati floor being used for residential purposes. She had shifted temporarily to her parents house but never got her name removed from the ration card at her matrimonial house. She had been drawing her ration at the place of the respondent even though she has been staying with her parents. Not a suggestion was given to her that she has any strained relation with the respondent or that she does not want to come to this house or that she was giving the evidence under any pressure or duress. On the contrary her statement clearly indicates that she wants to live in this house and that is the reason she kept her ration card with her in-laws and she had been drawing ration from this place. Her statement fortifies the contention of the respondent that need of his daughter-in-law and grand daughter is also his need and this fact has been elaborately discussed by the trial court and I see no reason to disagree with the same. The contention of Mr. R. L. Bhagat that the need of Mrs. Chanchal Taneja and her daughter cannot be taken into consideration, to my mind, has no force. ( 8 ) THE other ground taken by Mr. Bhagat is that the plan of the Barsati floor has notbeen filed. To my mind, nothing turns on the same because regarding Barsati floor enough evidence has already come on record. Mr. Bhagat then contended that the landlord is residing at Jaipur as he has his business in Rajasthan. He does not want to live in Delhi hence his need cannot be taken into account. This argument is also without force. Respondent appearing as A. W. I categorically stated that he is having a business at Jaipur i. e. farm house as well as operating the bus in Rajasthan. He has only one bus. He visits Rajasthan to look after his business but that does not mean that he has aresidence at Jaipur. He is residing at Delhi with his family. Respondent appearing as A. W. I categorically stated that he is having a business at Jaipur i. e. farm house as well as operating the bus in Rajasthan. He has only one bus. He visits Rajasthan to look after his business but that does not mean that he has aresidence at Jaipur. He is residing at Delhi with his family. Simply because of the exigencies of his business he has to go for couple of days or months to Rajasthan would not mean, the respondent s requirement is not bonafide. It cannot be construed that he is not residing at Delhi. Keeping into consideration the number of family members of the respondent and their needs and their requirement, the accommodation available with him, to my mind, the trial court rightly concluded is not sufficient and he does require additional accommodation for himself and for the member of his family. ( 9 ) FOR these reasons I find no infirmity in the order of the trial court and no merit in this petition. Dismissed.