JUDGMENT :

J.C. SHAH, J.

1. Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, provides :-

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant :

Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds, namely :-

(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation."

The explanation to that clause is not relevant. The section is fairly plain. An order in ejectment against the tenant may be made under clause (e) if the landlord requires the premises for his own occupation, or if he is the owner, for the members of his family dependent on him, or for the persons for whose benefit the premises are held. Requirement of the landlord must be judged in the light of the status in lift intending to occupy, his age, state of health, the way in which his accustomed to live, the accommodation which he occupied or otherwise he is available to him and other relevant circumstances. The landlord must require the premises bonafide. It is for the Court which is invested with the power to determine whether the landlord requires the premises for occupation and whether the requirement is bonafide.

2. The appellant is the owner of a building No. 4, Original Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The family of the appellant consists of herself, her husband and her daughter. The appellant has for the last many years been living at Ambala Cantonment and now desires to shift to New Delhi. The appellant's husband is a retired official of the State of Punjab, and draws a pension of Rs. 500/- p.m. The building No. 4, Original Road, consists of a ground floor and an upper floor. The ground floor has one office room, one drawing room, one dining room, four bed rooms, four verandaha two of which have been converted into rooms two stores, five bath rooms and a motor garage. The upper floor has the same living accommodation. The ground floor is lying vacant, but the appellant claims that she requires the upper floor for her personal occupation. She applied to the Controller for an order of eviction against the tenant of the upper floor on the plea that she requires the upper floor for her personal occupation. The Rent Controller granted the application. The order was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal by the tenant. A second appeal filed by the tenant was allowed by the High Court of Punjab at Delhi. The reasons in support of the order are summarised in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment. The court observed :-

"In the instant case, it is found as a fact, and that finding is not disputed before us, that the respondent has a fairly commodious and independent accommodation available to her on the ground floor. All of what is said on behalf of the respondent is that she is not used to living in a place were somebody else is living. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the social status established on the record, I am of opinion that the plea set forth does not meet the claims of a 'reasonable man'. It must follow that the circumstances of this case show that the landlady has other reasonably suitable accommodation available and consequently, she has failed to satisfy the conditions laid down in the said clause (e)."

3. Counsel for the appellant contends that the High Court has, in determining whether the appellant requires the premises for her own occupation considered the evidence in the light of a wrong test, and has erroneously s