The landlord is entitled to evict the tenant if the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his own residence and for the residence of other members of his family dependent upon him.

( 1 ) ONE of the tenants has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th July, 1978 of the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the tribunal has dismissed the appeal against the order of eviction which has been passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi.

( 2 ) ONE Dropati Devi was the landlady of House No. 673 Katra Ned, Delhi. A portion of the house on the ground floor and on the second floor was let out to Radhey Shyam, appellant herein and Shyam Sunder. The landlady filed an application under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenants on the ground that she required the premises bona- fide for her own residence and for the residence of other members of her family dependent upon her and who had been living with her as members of one family. The members of the family referred to above included the landlady s two sons, namely, Prem Nath and Amar Nath and otheir respective families as well as a widow daughter-in-law of the landlady.

( 3 ) THE tenants contested the eviction petition. They denied that the landlady was the owner of the premises in question. They also denied that the premises were required bonafide by her. It was also contended by the tenants that the premises had been let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes.

( 4 ) THE parties led evidence before the Rent Controller. By order dated 21st January, 1974 the Rent Controller, Delhi held that Dropati Devi was the owner of the premises, the said premises had not been let out for residential-cum-commercial-purposes and the premises were required bonafide by the landlady for her own use and for the use of members of her family who were dependent upon her. It was found by him that, considering the extent of the family, the accommodation available with the landlady was highly insufficient.

( 5 ) AN appeal was filed against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller. Though in the written statement a number of pleas have been taken, some of which were argued before the Rent Controller, before the Tribunal the counsel for the tenants confined his arguments only on the question of bonafide requirement for additional accommodation which had been set up by the landlady. The Rent Control Tribunal, however, looked into the other grounds which had been raised before the Rent Controller and he came to the conclusion that, on merits, the decision of the Rent Controller was correct. With regard to the ownership it was observed that the property admittedly belonged to one Damodar Dass, who, by a registered gift deed had transferred the same in favour of Dropati Devi. It was evident that she was a owner, having become so by virtue of the said gift deed. It was also found that the premises had been let to the tenants on the death of one Hargovind, who was the tenant earlier, and Dropati Devi had been accepted as the landlady as per the rent receipts which had been issued by her in favour of the tenant. It was also found that the premises in question had been let only for residential purposes. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal Smt. Dropati Devi died. Her two sons and the widow daughter in- law were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased. A contention was sought to be raised on behalf of the tenants that on the death of Dropati Devi the cause of action had come to an end. Relying upon the decision of Shantilal v. Chunni Lal, 1976 R. C. R. 28, the Tribunal repelled the said contention. In the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment it had been laid down that if a landlord seeks eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement for himself and for his family members dependent upon him then, on the death of the landlord, the benefit of that particular ground can be availed of by the said family members. The aforesaid ratio was applied by the tribunal to the present case. In my opinion the decision of the Tribunal on this ground is clearly unassailable. The Tribunal further found that the accommodation in th