R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) RC-REV. 22 of 2004 is directed against the judgment and order dated 13. 12. 2003 of the Additional Rent Controller (for short controller) in eviction petition No. E-190/2000 whereby the learned Controller has dismissed the petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ). ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as noted by the learned Controller, are that - "the petitioners claimed to be owners of the property No. 1897, Road No. III, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 having purchased the same in the year 1970 from the previous owner. Earlier, the petitioner was also tenant along with the respondent in the said property. The respondent is tenant in one room, kitchen on the first floor of the property No. 1897, Khari Baoli, Delhi-6. According to the petitioner, the premises were let out to the respondent for residential purposes and are required bona fide by the petitioners for themselves as well as for the residence of their family members dependent upon them and they have no other suitable alternative residential accommodation available. It is submitted by the petitioners that petitioners are residing in one room on the first floor of the property shown in green colour in the site plan and on account of paucity of accommodation, the petitioners are facing great hardship. He has got five sons and one daughter all of whom are married. The four sons of the petitioners are residing in their own property No. 21, Chitra Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi and one son of the petitioner is residing with his family at Bombay. It has been further submitted by the petitioner that they were earlier residing with his son at 21, Chitra Vihar, Vikas Marg, which is owned by the sons of the petitioner but for the last four years the petitioners are on the first floor of the property in question because the petitioner No. 1 being an old aged person was unable to attend to his business activities on account of distance of the said house. The petitioners are men of status and assessed to income tax and he required to live in the locality as he is having his business under the name and style of M/s Puran Chand Babu Ram, 304, Tilak Bazar, Delhi which is more nearer to the present residence of the petitioners and the relations of the petitioners are frequently visiting them as such the property is required bona fide for themselves. The eviction petition has been duly replied by the respondent. He took several objections that petition is highly mala fide and petitioner is guilty of concealments of facts. The petitioners need is not bona fide, the accommodation available with the petitioners is more than sufficient for their residential requirement, and the petitioners are the owners of property N. H-27-28, Lakshmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi which is about 300 sq. yds. And they are also owners of property No. 21, Chitra Vihar, New Delhi which is two storeyed building with basement constructed on the land measuring about 400 sq. yds. It has been further submitted by the respondent that at the time of purchasing the property, the petitioners were tenants in the suit property and were residing in the portion mark y in the site plan filed by him and at the time of purchasing th property the petitioners have got vacant possession of the portion mark z on the ground floor and the portion mark b along with the present accommodation on the first floor. The second floor portion has been constructed by the petitioners after purchasing the property in the year 1971 and thereafter let out the same to the tenants. The portion mark t1 was let out to Sh. Beni Prasad. Portion t-2 was let out to Sh. Gopi Ram and portion mark t-3 was let out to Sh. Om Prakash Sharma. The portion y on the ground floor was let out to Sh. Virender Jain and the same has been vacated about 5 years back and the petitioners have converted the said accommodation into a godown and the petitioners have been using the portion mark z as godown purposes; that at the time of purchasing the property, the petitioners acquired the vacant possession of ten rooms in property and all the rooms were converted into godown and are using as godown. He also disputed the size of the tenancy premises and he further claimed that petitioner is residing at 21, Chitra Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi with their family members and do not require the premises for their residence and the petitioners never resided in the suit property. In fact, the petitioners want to enhance the rate of rent of the tenancy premises from Rs. 35/- to Rs. 200/- per month; that there are eleven rooms in possession of the petitioners and they are not using them as residence, they use to let and re-let the property in question on higher rent after getting the same vacated from old tenants. Had there been any requirement of the petitioners, they would not have let out the second floor which has been constructed by them after purchasing the suit property. The petitioners have intentionally and deliberately not filed the site plan of 21, Chitra Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi, and did not disclose the family members residing therein nor they filed the site plan of the property No. H-27-28, Lakshmi Nagar, Delhi. " ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is living with his son who is not on speaking terms and, therefore, requires the premises in question bona fide for his residence. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that as and when any room in the premises has been got vacated by the petitioner, he has converted the same into godowns. He further submits that the petitioner s son is in possession of two rooms which he is using for commercial purposes and that there is no dispute between the father and son who are doing business together. ( 4 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the judgment under challenge. It appears to me that the learned Controller has adverted to and given cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner s requirement is not bona fide. It is also on record that each time a room falls vacant, the petitioner has been converting the same into godown and/or using for commercial purposes. The landlord cannot create paucity of residential accommodation and then plead that he has bona fide need for additional accommodation. Self-created paucity of accommodation cannot be made basis of relief under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. The landlord cannot create paucity of residential accommodation and then plead that he has bona fide need for additional accommodation. Self-created paucity of accommodation cannot be made basis of relief under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. ( 5 ) IN that view of the matter, I find no infirmity, perversity and/or impropriety in the judgment under challenge. RC-Rev. 22 of 2004 is dismissed.