Usha Mehra, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENTS herein i. e. Smt. Ratna Dave and her two daughters sought eviction of this petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act ). Eviction was sought on the ground that they need the tenanted premises for her Driver and servants. Petitioner was inducted as tenant in respect of two rooms, store, kitchen, varandah and toilet accessable through open stair case (being servant quarter on the first floor above the garrage) of premises bearing No. 67, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000. 00 including electricity and water charges. ( 2 ) THE basic need of the landlady for which eviction was sought had been on the first floor of the main house under her occupation there are three bed rooms, drawing-dinnig, kitchen, bath, launge etc. This residential accommodation and a car garrage on the ground floor is not sufficient for her needs nor for the needs of her daughters. Their dependent domestic servants and drivers cannot be accommodated in the main house. Respondents have four domestic servants and a driver. They have to be accommodated in servant quarters. The old servant who was working with the respondents used to sleep in the stairs. The second servant could not last long with them because no place for living could be provided to him. In the absence of a living space in the house the car driver left the service of the respondents. Respondent No. 1 aged widow needs a Driver to drive her without which facility she cannot do her work. Minimum two rooms are required by her to accommodate the Driver and the servants. She also requires a room to keep old household articles and construction implements which cannot be stored in a small store measuring 4 x 4 adjoining the car garrage. Respondents herein have four servants and one driver but there is no place to accommodate them, hence the petition. ( 3 ) LEAVE sought by the present petitioner was dismissed. By the impugned order, it has been held that no triable issue raised. Aggreived by that order, the petitioner has come up in revision. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to petitioner the respondents No. 2 and 3 have no right in the property in question hence their need cannot be looked into under the Act. By the impugned order, it has been held that no triable issue raised. Aggreived by that order, the petitioner has come up in revision. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to petitioner the respondents No. 2 and 3 have no right in the property in question hence their need cannot be looked into under the Act. Respondents 2 and 3 have no locus standi to seek eviction for their needs or for the need of their servants. Even otherwise respondents 2 and 3 being married daughters having been living with their husbands in the matrimonial homes, hence not dependent on respondent No. 1 for their residence. Whereas respondent No. 1 has got sufficient accommoation for herself on the first floor of the main house. She has only one servant whom as per respondents own showing, accommodation has been provided in the stairs. He is living comfortably. If at all a separate room has to be given to the servant then the room available on the ground floor which is lying vacant and locked can be provided. There being four servants and a driver has been denied by this petitioner. According to petitioner there is only one servant with the respondent who has already been accommodated. Even otherwise if the respondent was in need of any separate room for the servant or the driver, she could not have let out another servant quarter on the second garrage consisting of room set. The said servant quarter on the garrage was earlier in the tenancy of one Mr. E. Dhatigara since 1982 i. e. much after the induction of the present petitioner. She was never interested to accommodate any servants separately. Her intention was to re-let this premises for higher rent. Moreover, one room on the ground floor is lying vacant and locked, the same can be utilised by her for her servant, if any. So far as accommodation on the first floor of the main building is concerned, four rooms are sufficient for the respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are married and happily settled in their matrimonial homes. They do not require any accommodation in this premises. ( 5 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) taking into consideration the need of the servant of the respondent/landlady refused to grant permission to contest the eviction petition. Respondents 2 and 3 are married and happily settled in their matrimonial homes. They do not require any accommodation in this premises. ( 5 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) taking into consideration the need of the servant of the respondent/landlady refused to grant permission to contest the eviction petition. The learned ARC held that the need of a servant in fact is the need of the landlady. The respondent No. 1 being a widow of a senior Government Officer and being used to living in a spacious house is not expected to keep her servants adjacent to her rooms in the main building. Her requirement of minimum two rooms for her servants is a must. The learned ARC accepted the version of the respondent that there did not exist any vacant room on the ground floor lying locked. ARC took note of the fact that respondent No. 2 (petitioner No. 2 before the Trial Court) had been residing in the property in question. Her two servants have been residing in this very house. He observed that respondent/ landlady was not expected to keep ground floor of this premises un-let when she did not require the same for her personal need. Her requirement arose when she could not accomodate four servants and driver. The ground floor with servant quarter and garrage being complete one unit had to be let out. ( 6 ) THE impugned order thereby declining leave has been assailed primarily on the ground that the learned ARC ignored the triable issue namely there exist dispute regarding number of servants with the respondent. According to petitioner, there is only one servant whom accommodation has been provided in the stairs but according to respondent she has four servants and a driver. This requires evidence. I find force in the submission of the petitioner. It is only after evidence led that one can know the number of servants with the respondent and their requirements. If it is proved that she has only one servant then according toher own showing he has been staying in the accommodation available in the stairs. This, to my mind, raises a triable issue. Secondly the respondent has not denied the averment of the petitioner that a vacant room on the groundfloor is lying locked. This averment was made in para 9 of the petitioner s affidavit seeking leave to defend. This, to my mind, raises a triable issue. Secondly the respondent has not denied the averment of the petitioner that a vacant room on the groundfloor is lying locked. This averment was made in para 9 of the petitioner s affidavit seeking leave to defend. In reply affidavit respondent admitted that there is a room measuring 3 x 5 on the ground floor lying vacant. She, however, explained it away by saying that it was meant for storage of motor parts and other implements of construction. It is not habitable. This shows she has not specifically denied the existence of a room on the ground floor which is lying locked. To my mind, petitioner did raise triable issues namely regarding number of servants and accommodation being available with the respondents. If these facts are proved then the respondent would be disentitled for eviction. ( 7 ) DURING the course of arguments it was urged that the second servant quarter on another garrage had been vacated by the erstwhile tenant. That servant quarter consisting of two rooms has been re-let by the respondent/landlady to an Embassy. Respondent/landlady having re-let the ground floor with garage and servant quarter recently to a newly tenant even when this petition was pending, this raises a issue which requires consideration and adjudication as to whether the need of the respondent is genuine or not. Mr. D. D. Singh appearing for the petitioner further contended that had the need of the respondent been genuine, she would not have re- let the servant quarter on garrage portion for the second time to a new tenant. By reletting the other servant quarter over the garrage she has created artificial scarcity. If these facts are proved, Mr. D. D. Singh contended it would disentitle the respondent of any eviction. The points raised by him require evidence as they are triable. I find force in these submissions of Mr. Singh. If there is only one servant and a room on the ground floor lying vacant then the need of the respodent cannot be bonafide. Moreover what will be the effect of reletting the second servant quarter on another garrange to a new tenant even after the filling of this petition. It requires consideration and determination. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I find that leave ought to have been granted to the petitioner. Moreover what will be the effect of reletting the second servant quarter on another garrange to a new tenant even after the filling of this petition. It requires consideration and determination. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I find that leave ought to have been granted to the petitioner. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. Leave is hereby granted to the petitioner to contest the petition of eviction. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Rent Controller on 6th May,1997.