Judgment Manmohan Singh, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of eviction dated 11th August, 2004 passed by the Court of Rent Controller, Delhi in Case No. 247/2000 whereby the eviction petition ofthe landlord (respondent herein) was allowed. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 9 claiming themselves to be the landlord/owner of the property filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 3. The brief facts are that one room on the ground floor and one tin shed on first floor of property No. 482, Gali Shish Mahal, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, as shown in red colour in site plan was let out to Sh. Sita Ram for residential purposes only and after his death Sh. Pur an Chand, Sh. Kapur Chand, Sh. Kishan Chand, Smt. Angoori Devi and Smt. Santosh Devi have inherited the tenancy and became the tenants under the respondents. 4. However, Sh. Kishan Chand and Smt. Angoori Devi are residing therein with their family members from the year 1955. The rate of rent is Rs. 12/- per month besides other charges. 5. The suit premises was let out by Sh. Jora Mal Yad Ram-in the year 1955. Jora Mal Yad Ram sold the property in dispute to Sh. Khayali Ram and Dal Chand by way of registered sale deed dated 29th June, 1965. 6. Sh. Khayali Ram expired leaving behind respondent Nos. 2 to 9 as his legal representatives who inherited the said property in question and became the owners of the same along with respondent No. 1. 7. As per the eviction petition, it was alleged that the demised premises is bona fidely required by the respondents for the purposes of residence for themselves and their family. The demised premises comprises of ground floor and first floor built upon a plot of land measuring 70 sq. yards only. There are four rooms, a kitchen, latrine and bathroom and at present respondent No.2 is residing therein. 8. On the date of filing of the petition, the family of the respondent No. 1 comprised of himself, his wife and son aged about 32 years, daughter-in-law, grand son Puneet and one grand daughter Pooja. The family of respondent No.3 Ramesh Chand consists of himself, his wife and daughter aged about 21 years. 8. On the date of filing of the petition, the family of the respondent No. 1 comprised of himself, his wife and son aged about 32 years, daughter-in-law, grand son Puneet and one grand daughter Pooja. The family of respondent No.3 Ramesh Chand consists of himself, his wife and daughter aged about 21 years. The family of respondent No.4 comprised of himself, his wife and two sons aged about 18 years and 12 years respectively. The family of respondent No.5 comprised of himself, his wife and one son aged about 16 years and one daughter aged about 11 years. The family of respondent No.2 comprised of himself, his three sons aged about 26 years, 22 years and 18 years respectively and one daughter who is married and who visits and stay with her parents frequently. 9. It was mentioned in the petition that the petition was not being filed for the requirements of respondent nos. 6 to 9 but they are necessary parties being the co-owner of the property in dispute. 10. It was alleged that the marriage of the children of the respondents is being delayed because of paucity of accommodation. On the date of filing of the petition, there were about 22 members in the families of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and at least more than 25 rooms apart from kitchen, latrine and bath rooms and other store rooms are required for the purposes of the respondents and their families depending upon them. 11. In the written statement, it is alleged by the petitioners that the petition filed under Section 25B read with Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act is not maintainable as the suit premises was let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes and the respondents are residing therein along with their family members and now using the same for commercial purposes. 12. It was further alleged that the premises were let out by the old owner of M/s. Gopal Das Sita Ram and the rent receipts were also issued in favour of the firm. The said firm is registered with the Government Department. 13. It was further alleged that the premises in possession of the respondents is on the ground floor as shown in the site plan attached with the written statement and that of the petitioners is on the first floor shown red in the site plan. The said firm is registered with the Government Department. 13. It was further alleged that the premises in possession of the respondents is on the ground floor as shown in the site plan attached with the written statement and that of the petitioners is on the first floor shown red in the site plan. The respondents have not shown the actual tenanted premises under the petitioners in the site plan. 14. The firm M/s. Gopal Das Sita Ram is the tenant in the said premises. The said firm was established and the rent receipts were issued by the previous landlord in the name of the firm. As per the site plan, 3 rooms shown in the site plan in yellow colour along with the way to approach to the said room is in possession of the respondents. 15. It was also alleged that the premises is not required by the respondents bona fidely for residence of themselves and their family members. It was further submitted that the family members have already been married and there is no question of their bona fide requirement in the premises. It was also denied that the marriages of the sons and daughters of the respondents could not take place because of paucity of accommodation. In the written statement, the family members of the petitioners were also denied. 16. It is submitted that after filing of the present petition, the respondents have acquired some rooms from the legal heirs of Late Smt. Revati Devi and these portions are lying vacant and are occupied by the respondents. 17. During the pendency of the present revision petition, the petitioners have filed an application: under Order 41 Rule 27 being C. M. No. 8943/2005 by incorporating the facts that besides the properties mentioned by the respondents, they also own and possess another constructed residential three storeyed property bearing No. B-140/C, New Ashok Nagar, Chatrapati Shivaji Stadium, Delhi-110006. . 18. In the application, it was alleged that respondent Nos. 1 to 9, intentionally and willfully concealed the said relevant fact from the court below. It was prayed that the said fact may also be considered while disposing of the present revision petition. 19. In reply to the said application, the respondents have alleged that the said property is a commercial property having one hall on the ground floor and one hall each on the first and second floors. It was prayed that the said fact may also be considered while disposing of the present revision petition. 19. In reply to the said application, the respondents have alleged that the said property is a commercial property having one hall on the ground floor and one hall each on the first and second floors. The said property was constructed by the son of Sh. Om Prakash Verma, respondent No.2 about two years back and it was owned by Sh. Manoj, Sachin and Sunil Verma sons of Om Prakash and they are carrying on business of Handicrafts in the property in question. On the ground floor, packaging work is carried out and on the first floor the said Manoj, Sachin and Sunil Verma are having their office and display of handicrafts items is made in the showroom. It was alleged that the said property is neither suitable for residence of respondent T08. 109 nor owned by them and it is also not a residential property. 20. Along with the reply, the respondents have also attached copy of the Directory issued by the Indian Handicarft and Gift Fair held in Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, India from 28th February to 28th March, 2004 containing the address of Handicraft India, B-140/C, New Ashok Nagar as Annexure R-1. 21. In the rejoinder, the petitioners have again challenged the Statement of the respondents by alleging that no documentary evidence regarding the ownership of the said property even by way of sale deed has been produced by the respondents. 22. The petitioners filed the affidavit before this court on 24th August 006. In the said affidavit, it was alleged that the petitioners applied to the MCD for disclosure of the deed of the abovesaid property. The MCD revealed n the reply that the property is owned by Sh. Sachin Verma and only on the found floor of the said property the commercial activity is carried out but e first and second floor of the property are lying locked. It was also revealed y MCD that no permission has been taken by the respondents to carryon ny commercial activities in the said house. 23. Sachin Verma and only on the found floor of the said property the commercial activity is carried out but e first and second floor of the property are lying locked. It was also revealed y MCD that no permission has been taken by the respondents to carryon ny commercial activities in the said house. 23. In counter to the said affidavit, respondent No.2 filed the affidavit y placing various documents R-1 to Rc4 which are power of attorney, deed of agreement, receipt of consideration, bill, affidavit and possession letter s well as property tax return from the year 2006-07 and property tax payment receipt for the years 2004-05 to 2005-06 as well as copy of the licence issued for exporting handicrafts. It was further alleged in the said affidavit that the information received by the petitioners from the MCD is correctly incorporated by the petitioners. There is office on the first floor d a room on the second floor which are not always kept open. The show am on the second floor is opened only when some foreigners visits the property where the items of handicrafts are displayed. The office on the first oar is used for negotiations with the foreign customers. 24. Another application C.M.No. 14888/07 was filed by the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Rule 11 and section 151 CPC to bring ort cord the factum of the death of Smt. Parvati Devi, respondent No. 10). The aid application was allowed on 11th February, 2008 and the legal representatives of respondent No.1 (i) are brought on record. 25. The petitioners have examined 5 witnesses, namely, Kapoor Chand, W-1, J.C. Sharma, RW-2, M.K. Srivastava, RW-3, Duley Ram, RW-4 and Satyaveer Singh, RW-5. On the other hand, from the respondents side Om Prakash S/o Sh. Khyali Ram, respondent No.2 appeared as PW-1. 26. It is also mentioned in the eviction petition that the respondent Nos. to 8 are co-owners of another property bearing No. 4847, Pathak Namak Haus Quasi, Delhi, comprising of ground and first floor built upon a plot of and measuring 70 sq. yards only and in the premises there are only four rooms, kitchen, latrine and bath and at present the respondent No.2 along with his family is residing in the said property. 27. yards only and in the premises there are only four rooms, kitchen, latrine and bath and at present the respondent No.2 along with his family is residing in the said property. 27. Except the property mentioned above and the property in dispute neither any of the respondents nor any of their family members own any property in Delhi. 28. In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1998 (8) SCC 119 this Court has held that the Rent Controller should not proceed on the assumption that the landlords requirement is not bona fide. When the landlord shows a prima facie case a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide is available to be drawn. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. 29. In Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan, 1996 (5) SCC 353 , this Court has held that in considering the availability of alternative accommodation, not availability merely but also whether the landlord has the legal right to such accommodation has to be considered. If the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself tightly into lesser premises protecting the tenants occupancy 30. In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co., 2000 (1) SCC 679 , it was held as follows: "It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter." ~n. In Tilak Raj v. Krishan Lal; 1982 RLR- Note 33 it was held that the married daughter keep on visiting their fathers home and are well entitled to some accommodation (guest room) and hence landlord was entitled to say that he wanted some accommodation for their use also. 32. In the case of M/s. Reflex International Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Rajinder Dev Chopra in Rent Revision No. 33/2008 it was observed in para 10 as under: "10. 32. In the case of M/s. Reflex International Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Rajinder Dev Chopra in Rent Revision No. 33/2008 it was observed in para 10 as under: "10. It must be kept in mind that the underlying principles of rent restriction legislations is that there should be no exploitation of the tenants at the hands of the landlords. These restrictions, however, cannot be construed or interpreted so as to make the protection conferred on the tenant as a source of torture and gross injustice to the landlord, who at the time of his bona fide needs is not even allowed to re-occupy his premises......" 33. As per well settled law, the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord to live in a particular place. The landlord is entitled to live with his family as per their own choice. The facts in C.M. No. 8943/2005 are also taken into consideration by me. In view of the well settled law and facts and circumstances of the case, I find the requirement of respondents is bona fide and Additional Rent Controller rightly passed the order of eviction against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. This application is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. 34. Another aspect pleaded by the petitioner is that the premises was let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes. In this respect, besides the pleadings, the petitioners have relied upon number of documents in order to show that the said premises was being used for commercial purposes also. From the perusal of the documents, it appears that the address of the suit premises was shown as Gopal Das Sita Ram. The details of the said documents are given in the impugned order from paras 13 to 15. 35. While seeing all the evidence and documents on record filed by the petitioners, the said documents do not prove that any commercial activities arc carried on in the suit premises inspite of the fact that various certificates, loan and other documents pertaining to the business have been received by the petitioners at the said premises. In view of the judgment relied upon by the respondents and evidence brought on record, it is clear that the suit premises was let out for residential purposes only. However, it was being used subsequently for business purposes also but not as a commercial activity. 36. In view of the judgment relied upon by the respondents and evidence brought on record, it is clear that the suit premises was let out for residential purposes only. However, it was being used subsequently for business purposes also but not as a commercial activity. 36. Even otherwise, in view of recent judgment of Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (dead) by LRs v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., 2008 (6) Scale 325 : 2008 (102) DRJ 393[SC] Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is held to be violative of the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India insofar as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes. The Supreme Court struck down this difference and brought residential and commercial premises at par. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was declared ultra virus stating that with the passage of time a statute which was held to be valid may be held to be invalid in the following terms: "It is trite to say that legislation which may be quite reasonable and rationale at the time of its enactment may with the lapse of time and/or due to change of circumstances become arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the doctrine of equity and even if the validity of such legislation may have been upheld at a given point of time, the court may, 11 subsequent litigation, strike down the same if it is found that the rationale of classification has become non-existent." Therefore the ground of premises being let out for commercial/nonresidential purposes is not available to the petitioners. 37. This is also recently followed in the case of Ganga Devi v. Distt. Judge, Nainital & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 770 , Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi, CR No. 528/1993 decided on 3.11.2008 and Bharat Bhushan Vij v. Arti Techchandani, 153 (2008) DLT 247. 38. In the above said facts and circumstances, the impugned order is confirmed. I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The petitioners are directed to evict the tenanted premises within the period of six months from today.