( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the landlord against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, who by his order dated 26. 4. 1978 dismissed the application for eviction brought under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Chapter III of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be called the Act ).

( 2 ) THE admitted facts are that the family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife and a son about 7/8 years old. The petitioner is Accounts Officer and is drawing total emoluments of about Rs. 1700. 00 per month. On the ground floor of the house there are two sets of two rooms each, being independent units. The respondent is a tenant in one of these sets namely- flat No. 2. The accommodation with the respondent/tenant is shown in red in plan Ex. A-2. The petitioner was previously posted at Kanpur and was transferred to Delhi sometime in February, 1977. The (petitioner filed application for eviction in May, 1977 on the ground that he required all the four fooms for his bonafide use/ it was also alleged that one of the tenants, Bhardwaj who was occupying one set had promised to vacate the premises but as the respondent had refused to vacate the premises the eviction petition was being filed against him. During the pendency of the eviction petition Bhardwaj vacated the portion occupied by him. The same was immediately occupied by the petitioner. He nevertheless maintained that the accommodation was less than his need and he still required the accommodation with the respondent.

( 3 ) THE respondent denied that the need of the petitioner was genuine and maintained that the accommodation with the later was sufficient for his purpose. The Rent Controller found that though he had nothing against the petitioner and the scale appears to be even he was of the view that the two room accommodation at present with the petitioner was sufficient for his purpose and therefore the demand for extra additional accommodation in dispute by the petitioner was unreasonable. He therefore, dismissed the eviction petition.

( 4 ) THE plan shows that the accommodation which was vacated by Mr. Bhardwaj and which is now with the petioner is two rooms 16 3"xl0 and 12 x9 6" with latrine, bath and store. There is also a verandah 8 feet wide next to the room 16 3x"10 . Mr. Makhija the learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the petitioner was atleast entitled to have an extra bed room for his son and for the need of other guests of the family, and so calculated there was no accommodation available with him even for sitting purpose. In that connection he referred me to the proposition that the statute is not intended to deprive a landlord of his bonafide desire so long as the desire is confined within reasonable limits judged from a practical and not fanciful point of view, to be more comfortable by occupying his own house. The law does not require a landlord to sacrifice his own comforts and requirements merely on the ground that the premises are with a tenant. (Vide 1966 D. L. T. 205) Roop Lal Mehra v. Smt. Kamla Soni. See also (1969 R. C. R. 236) Krishan Kumar and another v. Vimla Saigal. The proposition as such is unexceptionable. But the question of bonafide need has to be decided on the facts of each case. No universal rule can be applied to all the cases. The finding reached by the Court on appreciation of evidence that the landlord does not bonafide require the premises is a finding of fact and not a finding of mixed law and fact, and it cannot be interferred with by the High Court in second appeal unless it is shown that in reaching it a mistake has been committed by the Additional District Judge or it, is based on no evidence or is such as no reasonable man can reach (Vide 1976 R. C. R. 249 Krishan Kumar and Anr. v. Vimla Saigal. See also various other cases mentioned at Page 505 of Delhi Rent Control Act by Jaspal Singh. The question, therefore, that arised is can one say that the finding by the Rent Controller is so viti