JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
(1) The present petition has been filed to impugn the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, date September 11,1985, wherein he rejected the eviction petition of the petitioners from the front portion of premises House No. 67, Ring Road. Lajpat Nagar, Iii, New Delhi, which was let out to the respondent with effect from June 16, 1973. The premises have been inoccupation of the respondent company and were let out for the residence of the Managing Director of the said Company.
(2) The application for eviction was filed on September 30, 1980. The petitioners contended that they are in occupation of the rear portion of House No. 67, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi, and are in possession of 3 bed rooms, drawing room and dining room. The family members of the petitioners, at the time of the eviction petition were as follows: I)Petitioner' no. 1 ii) Petitioner no.2 iii) Petitioner no.2's wife iv) Petitioner no.2's son v) Petitioner No.2's other son vi) Petitioner no. 1 ' s mother-in-law (3) Petitioner no.2's grand mother aged about 92 years. It was further submitted in the application that the petitioner no. 1 has four married daughters and another daughter of petitioner no. 1 Mrs. [ENTITY] died in October, 1971 leaving behind a son aged about 13 years, at the time the eviction petition was filed. The petitioner no.2 was a Director in the firm M/s Kusum Sahni Private Limited, Okhla Industrial Estate. He, however, has given up his job and is doing his own business. It was stated before me that he has joined the legal profession and is presently enrolled as an advocate.
(4) The respondents filed an application for leave to defend, under [SECTION] of the [ACT], hereinafter referred to as the Act. The detailed affidavit was also filed by the said respondent, inter-alia, slating that the eviction petition was not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled to the relief, as prayed for. The learned Additional Rent Controller, vide order dated August 5,1982, examined the said application and held that the accommodation available with the petitioners was sufficient and reasonable and the requirement of the suit premises cannot be called bonafide, on account of the same being unreasonable. The eviction petition, as a consequence, was summarily dismissed. The petitioners herein felt aggrieved by this order and filed [CASE NUMBER] in this Court. The said petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated February 23,1983, and the impugned order dated August 5,1982, was set aside. The case was sent back to the Additional Rent Controller with a direction to proceed in accordance with law, from the stage of the application for leave to defend. The petition accordingly was dealt with in terms of the High Court order and the Additional Rent Controller rejected the same on September 11, 1985andthesameisnowchallengedbefore this Court.
(5) The Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the conduct of the petitioners was characterised by progressive attempt to improve upon the case set up in the petition. The only plea in the original petition was that some more bed rooms were required and as soon as the case was received back on remand from the High Court, the petitioners introduced a new ground in their application that a study room was required for petitioner no.2. It was also stated by the Additional Rent Controller that in the statement, for the first time, petitioner Shri [ENTITY] submitted that his eldest son was having weak eye sight and was required a specially illuminated room. The other new plea, which was sought to be raised, according to the Additional Rent Controller was that the entire family of the sisters and their children assembled at the house of the petitioners once in a year and they certainly would require more accommodation. The Local Commissioner was also appointed to assess the need of the petitioner and the family. The Additional Rent Controller considered the matter and it may be relevant to reproduce his findings in this regard, at incorporated in paragraphs 9,10 and 11 of the impugned judgment: "THE position that emerges is that the petitioners have only three bed rooms. Their family consists of petitioner no. 1, petitioner no.2, wife of petitioner no.2 and his two sons aged 9 years and 4 years. Needless to say that the children are too small to require separate bed rooms. Thus, petitioner no. 1 would required one bed room. Petitioners no.2 and 3 would need another bed room. The third bed room would suffice for the two kids of petitioner no.2. In short, the petitioners need three bed rooms and they have got three bed rooms. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioner no.2 has four sisters who visit and stay with him. Besides these four sisters, the husbands and son of the deceased sister also come and stay with the petitioners. It is contended that some provision for the sisters of petitioner no.2 and their families must be made. In support no.2 and their families must be made. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on authorities . In all these authorities, it was held that if married daughters of the landlord visit him, he can legitimately ask for additional accommodation for their stay. On the other hand, respondent has cited [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] In these two cases, it was held that the tenant cannot be turned out permanently for transitory trips of the sons and daughters of the landlord. The two authorities cited by the respondents are recent pronouncements and, therefore, I would follow them. 68 A.W.I.- [ENTITY] has stated that he is a consulting engineer providing management and technical consultancy service. In the site plan Ex.A.W.2/4 which was prepared by the local Commissioner, the bed room (U) has been described as study. The local Commissioner has explained on cross-examination that he gave nomenclature to different portions as told by the parties. I have no doubt that the bed room U was deliberately described as study with a view to put up a pretence of scarcity of accommodation,. It is manifest from the report of the local commissioner that there is a wine cabinet cum bookshelf in the drawing room mark-W. This observation of the local commissioner brings out two facts very prominently; firstly that the petitioner no.2 has no regular and large sized library and secondly that he has been using the drawing room for purpose of study. The bed room U' does not become study merely because petitioner no.2 found it more convenient to call it by that name."
(6) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the question of bonafide requirement is a mixed question of law and fact and this Court has ample powers to consider the same, as this will amount to decision on the substantial question of law. The requirement of the family is bonafide and it has also increased during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, as well as, before this Court. Petitioner no.2 has been enrolled as an advocate and it is desirable and necessary that he should be provided with a reasonable office to pursue his career. The evidence and bonafide plea has not been considered by the Additional Rent Controller and the findings in this regard are vitiated. The Additional Rent Controller also fell in error in discarding the needs of the married daughters and other relations, who keep on visiting the petitioners for family get-together and this will certainly establish that the accommodation, as presently held by the petitioners, is insufficient and their requirement and need is bonafide.
(7) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the revisional Court cannot examine a mere question of fact and the assessment of bonafide requirement is indeed a question of fact and no interference is called for in the present proceedings. The finding of fact, as a consequence, cannot be interfered and there is no mis-carriage of justice or error of law, which needs to be corrected by this Court.
(8) In [PRECEDENT]. the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the powers of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction and held that such jurisdiction enables the court of Revision in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of factalso, though the Revisional Court is not a second Court of first appeal. In appropriate cases the High Court can reappraise the evidence, if the findings are found to be infirm in law. The Court further came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived on good faith and that, the Court must also, consider reasonable to gratify that need. The landlord's desire for possession, however, honest it, might otherwise be has inevitably a subjective element in it and for that desire to become a requirement in law it must have the objective element of "need". It must also be such that the Court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the Court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration, so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant, is not rendered merely illusory or whittled down.
(9) In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the bonafide requirement of a lawyer, who sought ejectment from residential premises on the ground of bonafide requirement of his family and himself. The mere fact that he intended to use part of the premises for purpose of his office and library, bonafide requirement of the landlord for purpose of residence will not stand vitiated or become extraneous to provisions of [SECTION] of *he Act, as any professional man would necessarily have to set apart portion of his residence for his professional use and the premises would not cease to be residential in this situation.
(10) The family of the petitioners, as stated in the order of the Additional Rent Controller, consisted of petitioner no. I, petitioner no.2, wife of petitioner no.2 and his two sons, aged about 9 years and 4 years at that time. In view of this, it was held that the children were too small and would not require separate bed rooms. The petitioner no. I would require one bed room and petitioners 2 and 3 would require another bed room. The third bed room would suffice for the kinds of petitioner no.2. In short, the petitioners needed three bed rooms and they have got 3 bed rooms. The contention of the petitioners that they have four sisters, who visit and stay with them, was not accepted by the Additional Rent Controller and he categorically held that the plea of a family get-together, was nowhere found in the petition and it would be seen that at every stage of the trial, the petitioners have improved upon their case to show the increased requirement. The learned Controller further said that this indicated that petitioners were conscious of the inherent weakness of their case.
(11) In [ENTITY] v. Nand Kishore 1983 R.L.R. 19, the learned Single Judge of this Court considered the question of the need for married daughters, relations and guests. It may be relevant to reproduce the following paragraph of the judgment in this regard: "NOW,undoubtedly, there are some cases which show that visits by married daughters and guests may be taken into account whilst assessing the needs of the landlord. But, I think, it would be wrong to give too much importance or weight to this factor. After all, it must be remembered, that it is the eviction of a tenant from his established home which is at stake: and he is pushed out into a world where accommodation is very scarce and expensive. One of the main objects of the [ACT] is to provide protection to a tenant against eviction. This protection is withdrawn, by the proviso to [SECTION] of the Act, on limited grounds. One of them is, when the premises are actually required by the landlord himself. Obviously, this exception should not be so worked as to defeat the whole purpose of the Act It must be applied in a broad common sense way, so as to hold the balance: see [PRECEDENT] . Surely, it would be a total distortion of the law to make an order for recovery of possession against a tenant so that the married daughters and friends of the landlord may be more comfortable during their fleeting visits. And, the tenant is evicted not for the short spell while the visit lasts, but for ever. To my mind, that is no way of holding the balance."
(12) In [PRECEDENT], the Single Bench of this Court took the contrary view that it was common knowledge that in Hindu society, married daughters keep on visiting their father's home off and on. The following passages may be reproduced in this regard: "The question which still remain to be answered is whether he genuinely and bonafide needs more accommodation for the study of his college/school going children and for the stay of his married daughter, her husband and children and his eldest son, who is at present employed at Bombay. It is common knowledge that in Hindu society married daughters keep on visiting their father's home off and on. It is not only customary for the married daughters to be invited on certain social functions but even otherwise parents would like them to come and stay with them for some time. The cords of affection in the family are not suddenly snapped on a daughter getting married or a son living away from his parents to eke out his livelihood. The parents very much wish and desire that their married daughters, her husband and children as also their sons who happen to live elsewhere for earning livelihood etc. keep on visiting them. It is for satiating their own love and affection for children that parents want them to come to their home and stay with them. There is a long catena of decisions of this Court in which has been repeatedly held that a landlord can legitimately say that he wants more accommodation for his married daughters also. However, a discordant note has been recently struck by a learned Judge of this Court and he has expressed the view that it would be wrong to give too much importance or weight to this factor. Says the learned Judge that: "Surely, it would be a total distortion of the law to make an order for recovery of possession against a tenant so that the married daughters and friends of the landlord may be more comfortable during their fleeting visit is. And, the tenant is evicted not for the short spell while the visit lasts, but for ever. That is no way of holing the balance." (See [ENTITY] V.Nand Kishore and another, 23 (1983) DLT (SN6) (13) With great respect, I may say that while considering this factor what is to be taken into account is not only the requirement of the married daughter or who visits his paternal home but also the requirement of the landlord himself stemming from his insatiable love and, affection for his children that his married daughters and sons living away from him should come and stay with him off and on. Hence, need for additional accommodation on that account can by no means be said to be unreal or malafide. Moreover resultant hardship to the tenant who faces imminent eviction is not a factor to reckon with under the relevant provision of the Act. The additional accommodation sought by the landlord in the instant case can well serve both the purpose of a study room and a guest room, as the need be. Looked at from this angle, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondent landlord is in dire need of additional accommodation as the existing accommodation with him is absolutely insufficient and inadequate for his and his family's requirement. By no stretch of reasoning it can be dubbed as malafide or dishonest."
(14) The view of [ENTITY], J. in [ENTITY] (supra) was however, approved by [ENTITY],J. in [PRECEDENT], agreed with the view that it was only in the most exceptional cases that visits of married daughters or other relations and guests would have any tangible effect on the result of the proceedings for eviction.
(15) In [PRECEDENT], the question of need of married daughters, visiting the parents, was again considered and it was held that the word "himself' appearing in [SECTION] would not mean that only the physical need of residence of the landlord is to be taken note of. After all a human being is not only a physical being but is also an emotional and social being. It is the need of the landlord himself that contemplates taking into consideration the need of the financially dependent on the landlord. Similarly it is the emotional needs of the landlord that necessitate the visits of married daughters to his house often and keeping in view the way of living of our society, it also clear that such married daughters stay with their parents quite for some time every year. So, as a broad proposition of law it cannot be stated that need of married daughter cannot be at all taken into consideration while assessing the need of the landlord for more accommodation.
(16) The learned counsel for respondent Mr. [ENTITY], has argued on the other hand that the revisional Court, in exercise of its powers, cannot examine a mere question of fact. The Additional Rent Controller has considered this question and there is no mis-carriage of justice due to mistake of law and no interference is, therefore, called for. He has sought reliance from the provisions of [SECTION] of the Act, which clearly states that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself, that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. The present case, he argues, is not covered by this proviso and no relief can be granted to the petitioners. He has placed reliance on the judgments as reported in [PRECEDENT] ; [ENTITY] v. Chandrakant M. Patel & ors. (1974) 4 S.C.R. 267.
(17) In [ENTITY] and others (supra) their Lordship of the Supreme Court held: "The phrase "according to law" refers to the decision as a whole, and is not to be equated to error of law or of fact simpliciter. It refers to the overall decision, which must be according to law which it would not be, if there is a miscarriage of Justice due to a mistake of law. The section is thus framed to confer larger powers than the power to correct error of jurisdiction to which [SECTION] is limited. But it must not be over-looked that the section-in spite of its apparent width of language where it confers a power on the High Court to pass such order as the High Court might think fit, is controlled by the opening words, where it says that the High Court may send for the record of the case to satisfy itself that the decision is "according to law".
(18) It stands to reason that if it was considered necessary that there should be a rehearing, a right of appeal would be a more appropriate remedy, but the Act says that there is to be no further appeal."
(19) In [ENTITY] (supra) their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the revisional powers of the High Court, under [SECTION] of the [ACT] could only be exercised, if there was miscarriage of justice due to mistake of law. The finding of the Lower Court, as to bonafide requirement and greater hardship to landlord, by re-appreciating the evidence, was held not permissible.
(20) The question, now arises, as to whether, the Additional Rent Controller in the present case has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law. The main argument of counsel for the petitioner is that there is a miscarriage of justice as the plea of bonafide requirement has not been considered in accordance with law and this Court has ample powers to exercise revisional jurisdiction to deal. with the matter. The Additional Rent. Controller has adversely commented on the attempts of the petitioners to improve upon the case, set up in the petition and he has drawn adverse inference on this ground. He has stated that petitioner no. 2 has introduced the plea that his eldest son was having weak eye sight and he required a specially illuminated room at a subsequent stage. Another new plea taken at the stage of evidence was that the entire family, i.e. all the sisters and their children, assembled at the house of the petitioners once in a year. The plea of a family get-together is no-where found in the petition. Thus, it would be seen that at every stage of the trial, the petitioners have improved upon their case to show increased requirement. The Additional Rent Controller has further gone to say that this indicates that they have always been conscious of the inherent weakness of their case.
(21) I have perusal the eviction petition in this regard and it will be relevant to refer to the following paragraph of the grounds: "PETITIONERno. I has four married daughters. Another daughter of the petitioner no. 1, Mrs. [ENTITY] died in 0ctolber 1971 leaving behind a son now aged about 13 years. The daughters of petitioner no. 1 and the sons-in-law and grand sons and daughters, often visit the petitioners according to Hindu customs and they stay with the petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 requires one bedroom. Petitionerno.2and his wife requires one bed room. Petitioner No.1's mother-in-low and petitioner no.2's grand mother requires one bed room and the petitioner no.2's sons also require one bed room at least. The petitioners require at least two bed rooms more for their daughters and sons-in-law and grand sons who often visit them."
(22) The perusal of this paragraph clearly indicates that petitioner no. 1 has four married daughters and another daughter of petitioner No.1 died in October, 1971, leaving behind a son.aged about 13 years. The daughters of petitioner no. l and sons-in-law and grand sons and daughters often visit petitioners, according to Hindu custom and they stay with them. The additional Rent Controller has clearly fallen into an error to comment adversely that the plea of family get-together was no-where found in the petition whereas, the grounds in the petition indicate otherwise. This obviously has resulted in miscarriage of justice and the Court had no jurisdiction to hold that the said plea was nowhere found in the petition. The question of the need for married daughters and their families has been considered by this Court in number of cases. The consensus has been that such need obviously has a bearing on the requirement of the landlord and simply cannot be brushed aside on the ground that they cease to be members of the family. The learned judges in the case of [ENTITY] (supra), and Shri [ENTITY] (supra) did not lay down the proposition that at no cost such a need can be considered to determine the bona fide requirement of the landlord and these cases were decided on their own facts. The Additional Rent Controller has rejected the contention that the accommodation is insufficient as the petitioner no. 2 has four sisters, who visit and stay with them along with their families and a son of the deceased sister also has to be taken care of. The plea has been turned down on the ground that the tenant cannot be turned out permanently for transitory trips of sons and daughters of the landlord. This finding cannot be sustained, as the law is well settled that the married daughters along with their families often come and stay with their parents for sometime in the year and it cannot be held that the need of such family members cannot at all be taken into consideration for assessing the bonafide requirement for the landlord. The family members of this category are not expected to be huddled together with other members of the family, who permanently reside in the premises and they have to be provided an appropriate accommodation and this plea has been wrongly brushed aside by the Additional Rent Controller only on the ground that the plea of a family get-together is no where found in the petition which is incorrect. The married daughters even though they may not be member of the landlord ' s family any longer, the requirement of such married daughters can be taken into account in assessing the requirement of the landlord himself. ([PRECEDENT]). I am inclined to hold that some additional accommodation is certainly required by the petitioners on this ground. I have also assessed the need of the petitioners on other grounds and the requirement cannot be termed anything but bonafide.
(23) The other finding is to the effect that the family of the petitioners consists of petitioner no. 1etitioner no.2 and his sons aged 9 years and 4 years. The sons could be accommodated in one bed room and they are to small to small to require separate bed rooms. The petitioners, therefore, need 3 bed rooms and they have got three bed rooms. These two children obviously have grown up now and the subsequent need of the family, during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, cannot just be over looked. The petitioners have contended that the boys are now about 17 and 12 years of ages respectively and they will certainly require one bed room each. The subsequent events, as placed by the petitioners on record, will clearly indicate that the need for the premises has further increased and no fault can be found with this averment.
(24) The next point, which arises for consideration is, that the petitioner no.2 was doing his own consultancy service at the time the impugned order was passed and he required some room for office for his study and library and he was using one room for study. The Additional Rent Controller, however, has drawn the conclusion that the bed room was deliberately described as study room with a view to put up pretence of scarcity of accommodation. He further concluded that the petitioner no.2 has no regular and large size library and secondly that he has been using the drawing room for purpose of study. The bed room does not become study room merely because petitioner no.2 found it more convenient to call it by that name. This finding is against the settled law that if, a lawyer or a professional having his office wants to shift the same to his residence, then for eviction under [SECTION], requirement for office would be requirement for residence. All professional men may require office in their residence and it cannot be argued that the drawing room can be used for the purpose of the study ([PRECEDENT] The last question, which arises for consideration is about the powers of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction to interfere in the matters of this kind.
(25) In Smt. [PRECEDENT] , it has been specifically held that unlike [SECTION] of the [ACT], where the High Court's powers of interference for revision touches jurisdiction, the power of the High Court to interfere in revision under [SECTION] of the Act, is much wider in scope and enables the High Court to satisfy itself, as to whether, the decision rendered by the Rent Controller, on the facts in issue, is in accordance with law, i.e. to say in accordance with the well settled principles.
(26) The present case clearly indicates that the Additional Rent Controller has fallen into an error in assessing the need of bonafide requirement of the petitioners, by totally ignoring 'the accommodation required by the children, the married daughters along with their families, who visit the petitioners off and on and the requirement of a reasonable place for an office and library for petitioner no.2. These are admitted facts and the findings of the Additional Rent Controller have clearly caused manifest injustice to the case of the petitioners. The subsequent events, such as the growing children, can also be taken into consideration and they need not be huddled together in one room for all times to come. In this situation, there is clear miscarriage of justice due to misinterpretation of law and erroneous conclusion on facts and this Court can certainly satisfy itself on the facts in issue, that the need of the petitioners is bonafide.
(27) The Additional Rent Controller finally held that there was no element of need in the case of the petitioners and it was merely a desire. There is no dispute with the proposition that it is not enough that the landlord should merely desire to use and occupy the premises. What is necessary, is that he should need them for his own use and occupation. This test has not been correctly applied by the Additional Rent Controller and this is a clear case of interference in exercise of revisional powers by this Court, as any other conclusion would amount to miscarriage of justice.
(28) The petition, as a consequence, is allowed and the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated September 11,1985,is set aside and a decree for eviction is passed in favor of the petitioners. The respondent is, however, given six months time to vacate the premises. There shall be no order as to costs.