C. R. No. 1567 OF 2008 ::1:: Shri Harish Chander Chawla vs Shri Radhey Sham Present : Mr.S.M.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ******* RAJIVE BHALLA,J (Oral) Challenge in this revision petition is to orders, dated 19.2.2008, passed by the learned Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order, dated 11.12.2007, passed by the learned Rent Controller, ordering the petitioner's ejectment. The respondent-landlord sought the petitioner's ejectment on the ground of his personal necessity. The petitioner denied the existence of any need and asserted that the landlord possessed sufficient property to satisfy his need. The learned Rent Controller has held that the landlord's need is bona fide, as he is in occupation of one room, which is insufficient to accommodate his large family, consisting of his wife and five children. The learned Appellate Authority upheld the findings, returned by the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the landlord possesses sufficient accommodation, as on the demise of his father, he has inherited another house and, thus, the plea of bona fide necessity has ceased to exist. In all, there are three houses, namely, House Nos.506, 510 and 511. The tenanted premises bear House No.511 and consists of two rooms, one on the ground floor and one on the first floor. The room on the ground floor is admittedly in occupation of the landlord, whereas the room on the first floor is occupied by the tenant. House No.506, which was owned by his father, C. R. No. 1567 OF 2008 ::2:: has been inherited by the respondent, after the demise of his father. It is, therefore, asserted that the landlord's need was erroneously accepted by the learned Courts below. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have returned concurrent findings of fact that the accommodation in the possession of the landlord is insufficient, as the respondent's family consists, apart from him and his wife, of two major sons, one of whom is married, and three daughters who, though married, visit the respondent- landlord on different occasions. The learned Rent Controller held that in House No.511 i.e the premises in dispute, one room on the ground floor is occupied by the landlord, and House No.506, which has fallen to the share of the respondent, during the pendency of proceedings, consists of four rooms. As noticed herein above, the landlord's family comprises of two sons and three daughters. Both sons reside with the landlord. One of the sons is married, whereas the other has been engaged to be married. The landlord's three daughters, who are married, would visit him off and on. The landlord is the best just of his requirement, the extent and the nature thereof. The bona fides of the landlord's plea of necessity, in the present case, therefore, does not merit interference. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted three months' time to vacate the demised premises. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) March 14, 2008. JUDGE `kk' C. R. No. 1567 OF 2008 ::3::