R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 3. 1. 2002 of the learned Additional Rent Controller (for short the controller ) dismissing eviction petition of the petitioner filed under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ). ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Controller, are that : "petitioner in the present petition u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC submitted inter alia that she is the owner/landlord of the property No. C-18, NDSE Part-II, New Delhi and Barsati/second floor of the same property was let out to the respdt. at a monthly rent of Rs. 1100/- by agreement dated 1. 7. 98 for residential purposes, which comprises of two rooms, kitchen, bath, store, terrace specifically shown red in the site plan. Petitioner also submitted that she is 71 years old and her husband is 75 years old. Her son Dinesh Ahluwalia is living jointly with her along with his 15 years old son. Her son is helping his father in his business. She also submitted that she has a daughter named Indu Arora, who is Doctor by profession, who is presently living at Jaipur with her husband and son. Keeping in view the old age and ill health of the petitioner, she has asked her daughter and her son-in-law to shift to Delhi for looking her after and son in law do not want to live jointly with the petitioner and in order to provide a separate independent unit, petitioner requires bonafidely the premises in dispute in possession of the respondent for the use and occupation of the family members of her daughter. She also submitted that she requires presence of her doctor daughter as in case of any medical emergency, daughter of the petitioner can reach the house on ground floor without wasting any time. Petitioner also submitted that first floor of the petitioner is also in occupation of tenant, who are not vacating. However, she has taken steps to evict the tenant. The other portion of the house do not meet the requirement of the petitioner. Keeping in view the size of the family of her daughter. She also submitted that her daughter alongwith her husband want to have separate kitchen with a view to maintain dignity of their relations with the petitioner. However, she has taken steps to evict the tenant. The other portion of the house do not meet the requirement of the petitioner. Keeping in view the size of the family of her daughter. She also submitted that her daughter alongwith her husband want to have separate kitchen with a view to maintain dignity of their relations with the petitioner. She also submitted that accommodation on the ground floor is barely sufficient for the petitioner, her husband, her son and grand son, who is 15 years old and presently studying and require a separate room. The son of the petitioner is occupying separate two rooms and husband of the petitioner has his study room and one room is being used by the petitioner and her husband has other bed room. She does not have any other alternate reasonably suitable accommodation for adjusting her daughter of her family. Hence, she requires the premises in question under the tenancy of respondent for the bonafide use and occupation of her family members dependent upon her. In these grounds, she sought eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises. After filing the present eviction petition, leave was granted by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 28. 7. 94. " ( 3 ) IT was contended by counsel for the petitioner that the learned Controller has gone wrong in holding that the premises were not let out for residential purpose and also were not required bona fide by the petitioner. The respondent, who appeared in person, on the other hand, contended that the premises were let out for commercial purpose and that he is using the same for running an international consultancy business and also that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation and her requirements are not bona fide. On the question whether the premises are let out for residential purpose or commercial purpose, the Controller held that the respondent has proved that he is running consultancy business from the premises in dispute although the premises in question are in a residential area. From a perusal of the record I find, from the statement of RW-1, the respondent herein, that in his cross-examination he has stated as under : "i have documents proving that premises are used for commercial purposes as I have file a copy code No. of RBI allowing me to deal with foreign companies. From a perusal of the record I find, from the statement of RW-1, the respondent herein, that in his cross-examination he has stated as under : "i have documents proving that premises are used for commercial purposes as I have file a copy code No. of RBI allowing me to deal with foreign companies. I have also filed copies of letters written by Mr. Ahluwalia which shows that I have been using the premises for commercial purposes. It is wrong to suggest that premise were let out for residential purposes only. I have no document written of any kind showing that premises was let out for commercial purposes in the year 1978. I have also not filed any documents showing commercial activities in the year 1978. I registered myself as an advocate in the year 1962. I am not the practicing advocate through out and after 1962 in between I have been doing business also. I am enrolled with Punjab and Haryana bar council. I have not sent any letter requesting the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council to suspend my license. (Vol) As I was doing legal and commercial consultancy hence there was no requirement for seeking suspension of the licence. In the year 1978 when I came to the premises I had children with my wife. At present I am living with my wife and my son and my another son is working in USA. It is correct that in the school record of both my children the premises in dispute was mention as their residence. I have voter card showing my residential address as the premises in dispute. " ( 4 ) FROM the aforesaid statement of the respondent it is evident that the premises was let out for residential purpose in which the respondent has been residing along with his wife and children but is also carrying on some sort of consultancy business. It cannot, therefore, be said that the premises which is in a residential area and used predominantly for residential purpose, was let out for commercial purpose and used as such. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Precision Steel and Engg. Works and another vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal 2003 (2) SCC 236 . It cannot, therefore, be said that the premises which is in a residential area and used predominantly for residential purpose, was let out for commercial purpose and used as such. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Precision Steel and Engg. Works and another vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal 2003 (2) SCC 236 . ( 5 ) I, therefore, set aside the finding of the Controller to the contrary and hold that the premises were let out for residential purpose. As regards the question whether the premises are bona fide required, it has been held by the learned Controller that the need for eviction was based on the ground that the daughter of the petitioner would come to Delhi to look after her aged parents who are in very poor health and that in order to shift her from Jaipur to Delhi along with her husband, the premises in question are required for her residence, cannot be made out for the reason that the daughter who is an eye surgeon cannot be of any use for looking after the parents who do not need eye treatment but other medical care. With great respect to the learned Controller, it is hardly fair to say that a daughter is not competent to look after her parents merely because she is an eye surgeon and not a general medical practitioner. The daughter, even out of sheer love and affection is expected to look after her parents who are living with her brother who is 48 years of age and is mentally challenged. In her statement the daughter, AW-2, Dr. Indu Arora, has categorically stated that she wants to come to Delhi and look after her aged parents, one of them unfortunately died during pendency of this petition. It is cruel reasoning to shut out the daughter from the bona fide needs of the parents. ( 6 ) COMING to the accommodation, it was contended by the respondent that there exist four independent flats in the annexe portion of which one floor still lying vacant. In her cross-examination, AW-1, Satyawati, has stated that four flats in the annexe are under tenancy. There is nothing on record to show that the aforesaid flats in the annexe portion are lying vacant. In her cross-examination, AW-1, Satyawati, has stated that four flats in the annexe are under tenancy. There is nothing on record to show that the aforesaid flats in the annexe portion are lying vacant. It was also the case of the respondent that during the pendency of the petition, the first floor was vacated and re-let. Undoubtedly, the first floor was re-let which fact was stated by the petitioner herself in her cross-examination as follows : "during the pendency of the eviction petition the first floor of the house has been vacated. The first floor consists of a large accommodation. I want to let out the said floor to have some income for maintaining my property and for looking after the need of medical treatment of myself and my husband and for other expenses. I do not have any other alternative suitable residential accommodation. The portion marked in green in the plan attached has been forcibly occupied by the respondent in the plan Ex. AW1/2. I never give the portion mark B in green in Ex: AW1/2. My son Dinesh age 46 years is not doing any work. My son is mentally sick and he is dependent upon me. My grand son Shank aged 22 years is a student and he is also dependent upon me for his education and for his day to day expenses. " ( 7 ) THE letting out of the portion of the premises which is not required for herself can be no ground for dis-entitling the landlord from seeking eviction of the accommodation that is necessary and bona fide required by her for her residence and/or for residence of other members of her family. Reference may be had to Shri Tawab Khan vs. Smt. Abnash Kaur 1995 II AD (Delhi) 124 as also Savatri Sahay vs. Sachidanand Prasad, 2002 (8) SCC 765 . ( 8 ) I accordingly, hold that the petitioner has been able to prove her requirements under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act and decree her suit for eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. The petition is allowed. C. M. Appl. 8677 of 2004 also stands disposed of. The respondent is given six months time to vacate the premises. --- *** --- .