( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant Mussadi Lal under Proviso to Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short Act) against the order of eviction dated 5th March, 1987 passed by an Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Clause (e) of Proviso to Section 14 (1) of the said Act i. e. on the ground of "requirement for residence", in favour of the respondents (hereinafter called the landlords ).

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the respondents No. l and 2, Raghunath Pershad Nigam and Shri Prem Narain Nigam who are brothers, as owners of property No. 905, Gali Inder Wali, Kucha Pati Ram, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi had filed petition dated 24th September, 1984 seeking eviction of their tenant deceased Mussadi Lal Jain from the premises comprising of one room, one kotha, one dalan besides common latrine and bathroom on the ground floor of the said house for "bonafide personal need" as contemplated under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act, for respondent No. 1.

( 3 ) THE procedure as provided under Section 25-B of the Act was followed. The tenant had made an application seeking leave to defend which was contested by the landlords. Vide an order dated 18th September, 1985 the Additional Rent Controller had held that the application for leave to defend did not disclose any triable issue and the same was dismissed and at the same time it was also held that from the facts alleged in the petition it was not made out that the petitioners bonafide required the premises in dispute and accordingly the petition for eviction was also dismissed. The landlords had filed revision petition against the said order of dismissal of the petition being C. R. 965/85. That petition was allowed vide order dated 21st May, 1986 and the order of the Additional Rent Controller was set aside, the case was remanded and the tenant was given leave to defend the petition. While that petition was pending in the High Court the tenant had died and his L. Rs. comprising of his widow, three sons and three daughters were substituted who are petitioners No. l to 6 and respondent No. 3 herein. After this remand the L. Rs. of the deceased/tenant had filed written statement 78 dated 30th May, 1986 and contested the claim of the landlords for their eviction on various grounds denying ownership, purpose of letting and bonafides of requirement. The replication was also filed by the landlords denying various objections taken on behalf of the tenants. In support of their case the landlords examined Prem Narain, petitioner No. 2 (in the eviction petition) and on behalf of tenants Ashok Kumar Jain, one of the substituted L. R. of the deceased/tenant was examined.

( 4 ) LEARNED Additional Rent Controller has considereed the case under following four heads: -1s1

1. Ownership of the property

2. Purpose of letting,

3. Bonafide requirement, and

4. Alternate accommodation.

( 5 ) HE gave findings on all these four counts in favour of the landlord and passed an order of eviction on 5. 3. 1987. The L. Rs. of tenant have come in revision under section 25 (B) (8) of the Act.

( 6 ) THE petition had earlier come up for hearing on 29. 7. 1988 before one of us (P. K. Bahri, J) when it was noticed that divergent views had been expressed in some judicial pronouncements about the meaning and scope of the word "himself vis a vis the need of the landlord for additional accommodation for the need of his near relations including married daughters. In some cases the view taken is that the landlord is not entitled for additional accommodation for married daughter or other guests or relations who off and on visit the landlord and stay with him. As this point arises in a number of cases it was desired by Bahri, J. that this point be decided by a larger bench. Accordingly, this case has come up before us on reference.

( 7 ) THE point to be determined thus is, "whether while assessing the bonafide need of the landlord for additiona