Usha Mehra ( 1 ) IT is established principle of law that in order to obtainleave to defend the tenant must make out a primafacie case thereby raising suchpleas and issue which if proved would disentitle the landlord of an order of eviction. The triable issues should be sufficient to grant leave. The test is triable issue and notthe final success. At the same time, while considering the leave applicationextraneous and frivolous defence cannot be considered. ( 2 ) KEEPING this principle in mind we have to see whether the defence raisedby the present petitioner amounted to triable issue or was frivolous and extraneous. Let us have quick glance to the leave affidavit filed by the petitioner. The pleas raisedtherein can be summarised, under following heads, namely, (1) the motive ofseeking eviction was to pressurise the tenant to increase the rent. In this regard herelied on a notice issued by the landlady dated 8/12/1985. Secondly, theneed of the landlady was not bonafide. The first floor of the property bearing No. K-73 (having separate No. K-74), West Patel Nagar was in occupation of anothertenant Mr. Gubux Singh. He vacated the same which was concealed by the landlady. First floor inspite of being vacant had not been occupied by the landlady. Theaccommodatron on the first floor is identical as on the ground floor. If her need bonafide she would have occupied the first floor. Thirdly, landlady possessed anotherhouse bearing No. B-3, Parijat Apartment, Pitam Pura, New Delhi which happenedto be a three room flat alongwith drawing, dining, bath, kitchen on the first floor. Fourthly, the accommodation available with her i. e. Government allotted housebearing No. J-573, Mandir Marg, opposite Kali Bari, Delhi, comprising of two livingrooms with drawing, dining, kitchen, bath, latrine and big balcony, is sufficient toaccommodate her and her family consisting of her son and a daughter. Thatgovernment allotted accommodation is suitable and more convenient because it isnearer to the place of her work. Moi- over, her son is already settled at Ahmedabad. She is residing with her daughter at Mandir Marg. Finally, she has no intention toshift because after getting it vacated she wants to sell the same for which purposeshe has already contacted number of property dealers. The petition in the presentform is not maintainable because she has sought part eviction. Moi- over, her son is already settled at Ahmedabad. She is residing with her daughter at Mandir Marg. Finally, she has no intention toshift because after getting it vacated she wants to sell the same for which purposeshe has already contacted number of property dealers. The petition in the presentform is not maintainable because she has sought part eviction. ( 3 ) THE leave was contested by the respondent herein by filing her ownaffidavit staring therein that the tenant (petitioner herein) gother own house in Baljitnagar which she purchased Benami in the name of her uncle Shri Krishan Chand. That the petitioner/tenant in order to vacate the tenanted premises demanded apremium of Rs. 1,50,000. 00. This amount was demanded by her through her son Mr. Rajiv Nagpal in writing by sending a note date 6/12/1994. It wasmentioned in the said note that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 be paid by 6/01/1995. The present respondent being a widow lady showed her inability to pay suchhuge amount as she was financially hard pressed. She further testified the enhancedrent claimed at the rate of Rs. 5,000. 00 was under compelling circumstances. Thepetitioner herein had not been paying the rent regularly, therefore, in order tothreaten him that in case rent due is not paid she would claim damages at the rateof Rs. 5,000. 00 per month. Coupled with this fact, she testified that she had beenpaying Rs. 400. 00 per month as rent for the Government accommodation in heroccupation at Mandir Marg. This amount was deducted from her salary. Her salarywas Rs. 2,900. 00per month. Paying Rs. 400. 00 as rent was a financial crunch. That shewanted to shift to her own house. So far as the vacation of first floor of the premisesin question the same was vacated by Shri Gurbux Singh on 12/06/1996. whereasshe filed the petition in August, 1995, therefore, could not have mentioned this factof vacation of first floor by Shri Gurbux Singh. Shri Gurbux Singh paid rent tilldecember, 1995 by cheque and thereafter in cash till he vacated on 12/06/1996. The accommodation on the first floor of the premises according to her, was also notsufficient to accommodate her whole family. Moreover, the first floor premisesbeing in a damaged state required extensive repairs to make it habitable. Her sonhad gone to Ahmedabad to do M. B. A. and after completing his study had settledin Delhi. The accommodation on the first floor of the premises according to her, was also notsufficient to accommodate her whole family. Moreover, the first floor premisesbeing in a damaged state required extensive repairs to make it habitable. Her sonhad gone to Ahmedabad to do M. B. A. and after completing his study had settledin Delhi. Her daughter was studying in University. Therefore, her minimumrequirement was about four rooms, one for herself, one for son, one for her daughterand one for guests. The Government allotted accommodation consisting of tworooms was not sufficient. The first floor vacated in June, 1996 by Shri Gurbux Singhdid not meet her requirement. Therefore, she required the whole house i. e. the firstand the ground floor. As regards the flat allotted by the Society at Parijat Apartment,pitam Pura, New Delhi, she sold it in 1991 whereas the petition was filed in 1995. In 1991 she did not require accommodation and, therefore, sold the same. ( 4 ) IT was in this background that the learned Additional Rent Controller (inshort, ARC) considered the requirement of the respondent/landlady under Section14-D of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) and granted decree of possessionin her favour. ( 5 ) THE main attack to the impugned order is that none of the pleas raised bythe petitioner were considered by the Rent Controller. Decree of eviction wasgranted without discussing the fact that if any of the plea raised by the petitionerwas established it would have disentitled the respondent from an order of eviction. Admittedly, to succeed in getting possession under Section 14-D of the Act, theclassified landlord has to establish two things that she is a widow and required thepremises herself. The word "required by her" in Section 14-D of the Act clearlystipulates that her need is genuine and justified. The requirement of the landlordor the member of her family must be for residence. Therefore, the word "required"used in Section 14-D of the Act involves something more than a wish and it has anelement of need to an extent atleast. The need of the landlord has to commensuratewith the size of her family, social status, social habits and style of living. If it is foundthat eviction has been sought in good faith then it is a case in which she requires theirpremises for her own residence. In the present case, the respondent is occupyinggovernment accommodation for which she has to pay Rs. If it is foundthat eviction has been sought in good faith then it is a case in which she requires theirpremises for her own residence. In the present case, the respondent is occupyinggovernment accommodation for which she has to pay Rs. 400. 00 per month. In thegovernment allotted accommodation admittedly there are only two rooms: Whereasher family consists of herself, her son and a daughter. Her son was 27 years old whenpetition was filed in August, 1995 and daughter 20 years old. Landlady s family isto grow. Her son is of marriageable age. He had already completed M. B. A. fromahmedabad and has settled with his mother at Delhi. In this view of the matter, theadditional Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that Governmentaccommodation with her was not sufficient. ( 6 ) NOW the question for consideration is whether her need was bonafide. Ifshe really needed bigger accommodation she could not have sold the flat allottedin her favour by the society. To this query her answer inspires consideration as itappears to the truthful and straight forward. She explained in her affidavitsupported by the documents which documents from part of her affidavit that thesaid flat she sold in 1991 as her children were getting education and she was not inneed of that flat. She being a widow had this house with her. It has been testifiedthat she could not bear the financial burden. If in these circumstances she sold theflat in 1991 no mala fide can be attributed to her. The flat at Pitampura was sold inthe year 1991 and the eviction petition was not filed immediately thereafter. Thepetition for eviction was filed in 1995 almost four years after. Therefore, herexplanation that at that time she was not in need of additional accommodation asthe children were getting education and she being a widow needed the financehence on this ground she cannot be disentitled to the recovery of possession nor itwould amount to concealment. The said flat was not in her possession when shefiled the petition, hence there was no question of her mentioning the same. ( 7 ) AS regards the first floor vacated by Shri Gurbux Singh, she has testifiedthat the said tenant vacated the first floor on 12/06/1996. He paid the rent till 12/06/1996. Rent by cheque was paid upto December, 1995 and thereafter bycash till 12/06/1996. ( 7 ) AS regards the first floor vacated by Shri Gurbux Singh, she has testifiedthat the said tenant vacated the first floor on 12/06/1996. He paid the rent till 12/06/1996. Rent by cheque was paid upto December, 1995 and thereafter bycash till 12/06/1996. Therefore, when she filed the petition in August, 1995 thefirst floor had not been vacated by the said tenant. The premises remained lockedby the said tenant till June, 1996. The very fact that the said tenant paid rent upto 12/06/1996 shows that till the time of filing of the petition in August, 1995, thefirst floor was not in her possession. Therefore, there was no question of concealment of this fact by her. Her case was that she required minimum four rooms toaccommodate herself, her two children and the guests. Even if the accommodationon the first floor has become available during the pendency of this petition,according to her this is not sufficient. On the first floor there is only one room as perthe landlady and two rooms as pe the tenant/petitioner. Even for the sake ofargument if the version of t^is petitioner is accepted to be correct still theaccommodation on the first floor is not sufficient for the landlady to accommodateherself and her family. On the ground floor there is a tin-shed accommodation inthe possession of the landlady which is improvised and, therefore, cannot be calleda living room habitable for the landlady to live. The tin-shed room cannot beequated with a proper living room. She had in her reply affidavit indicated that assoon as the premises gets vacated she would occupy the entire house herself. Section19 of the Act envisages that if landlady does not occupy the premises after gettingit vacated, the tenant can get back the possession. Therefore, on this count also theapprehension of the petitioner that respondent/landlady wants to sell the houseafter getting it vacated are without basis. ( 8 ) SUPREME Court in the case of V. Rajeshwari v. Bombay Tyre Int. Ltd. , 1994rlr (SC) 365=54 (1994) DLT 494 (SC), has held that while deciding a petition ofa widow under Section 14-D of the Act Court has only to look two things, namely,whether she is a widow and that her requirement is bonafide. In this case so far asthe first is concerned that is obvious. Unfortunately respondent is a widow. Ltd. , 1994rlr (SC) 365=54 (1994) DLT 494 (SC), has held that while deciding a petition ofa widow under Section 14-D of the Act Court has only to look two things, namely,whether she is a widow and that her requirement is bonafide. In this case so far asthe first is concerned that is obvious. Unfortunately respondent is a widow. So faras her requirement, the same has been properly appreciated and discussed by thelearned ARC. As pointed out above she needs larger accommodation to accommodate herself and the dependent members of her family. Because of the growingneed, she requires more accommodation. As at present her minimum requirementis three to four rooms which she does not have. The learned are rightly came tothe conclusion that the petitioner has not raised any triable issue for which leavecould be granted. On the contrary the letter written by the son of the presentpetitioner thereby claiming a premium of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 to vacate the tenantedpremises show that the defence raised by the present petitioner was with a view toassert pressure on the landlady to shell out money. ( 9 ) REGARDING demand of Rs. 5,000. 00 as rent per month, that was properlyexplained by the landlady hence does not raise any triable issue. Even if it isestablished that she asked to enhance the rent that does not prove that she wasgetting the premises vacated because she wants to relet the same. Her explanationbeing already on record shows under what circumstances she claimed the rent atthat rate. Hence on this count also leave cannot be granted. for the reasons stated above, I find no merits in the petition. Dismissed.