Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order passed on 23rd September, 1993 by Shri P. C. Ranga, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, allowing respondent s application under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) by ordering his eviction from a residential premises. ( 2 ) THE respondent/landlord sought the eviction of the petitioner/tenant from residential premises, namely, second floor of premises bearing No. 1-34, Gurudwara Marg, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi, comprising one barasti room, WC, Kitchen, Balcony and open terrace, as shown in red colour in the plan attached to the eviction petition. The ground seeking eviction was that she as the owner/landlady of the tenanted premises requires the premises for her bona fide use and occupation for her residence and for the residence of her other family members who are dependent upon her. The premises were residential. Neither she nor any other dependent member was having any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available with them at Delhi. The property had been purchased by her vide sale deed dated 1st July 1960. The premises were not only residential but were also let out as such. According to the terms imposed while granting the lease of the land underneath the premises the same could not be put to any other use other than residential. It was 2- storeyed building with a basement. The basement was meant and is being used for storage purposes and was not habitable. On the ground floor, the accommodation is two bed rooms, drawing, dining and the amenities like WC, bath, kitchen, store, pantry etc. Similar accommodation is available in first floor and at the barsati floor there is a barsati room with WC, kitchen, balcony and open terrace. The first floor was with another tenant Shri C. K. Jain, who has been in its occupation since 1991. The respondent claimed that she was over 60 years of age and her husband was 65 years of age, who has been serving with Jetro, a Japanese Organisation. He retired in 1986 but had been retained as a Consultant on a salary of Rs. 3,000. 00 per month. She claimed that there were three daughters, all of whom were married and are residing in Delhi. He retired in 1986 but had been retained as a Consultant on a salary of Rs. 3,000. 00 per month. She claimed that there were three daughters, all of whom were married and are residing in Delhi. On the question of her requirement, she alleged that she and her husband were in poor state of health for the last two years. They suffer from diabities, Cervical as well as Lumber Spondilitis. She was also having a weak eyesight being patient of Glucoma and hardly in a position to manage the domestic as well as personal affairs. In this background, according to her, they needed some help and it was their youngest daughter who had agreed to look after them provided an independent reasonable suitable living accommodation is made available to her so that her and her husband s life is not adversely affected by joint living. A request was made to the tenant to vacate, who had failed to do so. Since ground floor was occupied by them where one bed room was meant for their use and the other for their guests, there was hardly any independent separate accommodation available to accommodate their youngest married daughter. Therefore, the accommodation on the barsati floor was the most suitable which was required by her since she and her husband wanted the married daughter to look after them in their old age, specially due to their falling health. ( 3 ) THE tenant sought leave which was granted and written statement was filed. The tenant pleaded that need was highly exaggerated. He in fact denied each and every fact alleged by the respondent. He also denied the allegation that respondent was 60 years of age or that her husband was 65 years of age. He admitted that two of the daughters were married but was not aware of the third daughter whether she was married or not. He denied the allegation that respondent and her husband were in poor health or that they require any attendant. According to him, the respondent was having spacious accommodation available with her with one more house in Model Town, Delhi. He also denied that the premises were residential. According to him, he was making commercial use thereof. It was alleged that he was dealing in precious stones and his customers were coming to the suit premises to buy the precious stones. He also denied that the premises were residential. According to him, he was making commercial use thereof. It was alleged that he was dealing in precious stones and his customers were coming to the suit premises to buy the precious stones. ( 4 ) THE Controller on the basis of the evidence adduced on the record came to the conclusion that the respondent require the premises bona fide. Since there was no son of the respondent and her husband and incase in their old age, their youngest daughter had agreed to look after them; for the purpose of accommodation she was dependent upon the respondent. In view of this finding, order of eviction waspassed. It is this order which is under challenge in the revision petition. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel forthe parties, who have taken me through the entire record. ( 6 ) ONE of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that eviction had been sought from only a part of the premises. Thus the petition for partial eviction was not competent or maintainable. There was sufficient accommodation available with the respondent in the ground floor where she could very easily accommodate her married daughter. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the need was highly exaggerated. In case it was necessary for the respondent to accommodate her married daughter to look after her in her old age, there was no need to seek eviction of a tenant living in the barasati floor rather eviction would be sought of the tenant in the first floor, which would be very close to the ground floor and convenient to the respondent also. Seeking eviction of the tenant from Barsati floor thus was a mala fide act and thus the petition for eviction was liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel forthe respondent has contended that evidence has rightly been appreciated in the light of the law laid down in various pronouncements of this Court. The facts, as alleged in the petition, had been duly established on record and since finding of fact had been recorded on the basis of the material on record, there was no ground to interfere by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. ( 8 ) IN support of her version, the respondent examined herself as AW. 1. The facts, as alleged in the petition, had been duly established on record and since finding of fact had been recorded on the basis of the material on record, there was no ground to interfere by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. ( 8 ) IN support of her version, the respondent examined herself as AW. 1. While reasserting the stand taken by her in the eviction petition she stated that her husband was not keeping good health after retirement and generally remains sick. She herself was not keeping good health. Her one eye was dead after operation and she had suffered severe backache. Neither she nor her husband were able to do their daily routine work due to their ill health. Therefore, she wanted her yougest daughter Maninder Kaur to live close by to lookafterthem. The yougest daughter was ready and wiling to look after them provided she gets a separate accommodation for maintaining privacy. She stated that during summer one room was used byher exclusively because she could not tolerate air cooler whereas her husband could not sleep without cooler. Her daughter had to sleep in her bed room and the guests had to to be accommodated in the bed room of her husband. Her version has been supported by A. W. 2 Smt. Maninder Kaur, the youngest daughter, who stated that she was married in 1988. Since there was no brother, therefore, at the time of her marriage it was agreed that after marriage she shall reside along with her husband with her parents. Her husband had also agreed to reside in her parents house. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law had expired. ( 9 ) ON this aspect that respondent and her husband are not keeping good health and they were in advance age and needed some help or that youngest daughter had agreed to provide that help has not been seriously disputed during the course of trial before the Controller. The version has remained unrebutted. Admittedly, when there are no male children to look after aged parents, the bona fides of the respondent cannot be doubted that her youngest daughter had agreed to look after them in their old age or for that purpose it also cannot be disputed that it will be for the respondent to make her daughter and husband comfortable so that their privacy is not affected. Respondent s daughter and her husband cannot be expected to stay in the same premises and in case the respondent has intention to provide them separate accommodation nearby, no malafide can be imputed to the respondent. After all, it is for the respondent to take a decision as to where her daughter should stay. For the purpose of the accommodation of married daughter, who had agreed to extend a helping hand to the respondent during her old age, she would definitely be dependent upon the respondent and thus finding recorded by the Rent Controller which are based upon material on record are not liable to be interfered with. ( 10 ) THE fact that eviction of the tenant residing in first floor has not been sought will also not be a ground to hold that the eviction has been sought mala fide. It is for the respondent to take a decision as to in which part of the building she would like her daughter to stay. For that purpose, the daughter s residence at 2nd or 1st floor will not make any difference since the daughter would be available within the same building and at time of need can be called by the respondent to render timely help. ( 11 ) ON the second point that the eviction petition is bad for partial eviction also there is no substance. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to take help from the statement made by respondent while appearing as AW. 1 that the entire barasati floor was rented out to the tenant. According to the submission made even the portion outside the red lines, as per plan had been described as open terrace and was a part of the tenanted premises which had not been included in the eviction petition. This submission has no force. In case, reference is made to the eviction petition and the reply filed thereto, it will be noticed that there was hardly any challenge made by the tenant to the respondent s allegation that what was let out to the petitioner was the residential flat, namely, second floor premises comprising one barsati room, W. C. , kitchen provision, balcony and open terrace, more particularly shown in red in the plan attached. To this para-8 of the petition, it was stated that entire second floor was under the tenancy and the respondent had not shown the entire tenanted premises in the plan. In his statement as RW. 2, the petitioner stated that he was in possession of one room, kitchen, bathroom and latrine in the barasati floor. The plan Ext. AW. 1/3, also reveals that the portion shown within red includes an open terrace towards southern side and eastern sides. Reference which has been made by the respondent is to this open terrace within red lines, which is a part of tenancy and not the open terrace towards north to which side is the water storage tank. It is neither shown to be within red lines nor has been claimed by the tenant to be a part of the tenanted premises, since no corresponding plan has been produced on record by the tenant. Thus the eviction petition is not bad for partial eviction. No interference is called for in the findings of fact. ( 12 ). Consequently, there is no force in the revision petition, which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Since the order of eviction was passed on 23rd September, 1993 and was not executable for a period of six months, which period has already come to end, in the interests of justice, it is ordered that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question till 30th April, 1995 in pursuance to the order of eviction provided within a period of one week from today, the petitioner places on record the usual affidavit with advance copy to the respondent to be served through his counsel agreeing and undertaking to hand over and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondent on or before 30th April, 1995 and also undertaking that he will not allow any other person to use the premises or will not part with the possession to any other person. Failure on the part of the tenant/petitioner to place on record his affidavit within one week, will enable the respondent to execute the order of eviction forthwith. No costs.