A landlord's need for additional accommodation under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, must be bona fide, and the subsequent vacancy of other premises belonging to the landlord during the pendency of the proceedings is irrelevant in determining the landlord's bona fides.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent control Act 1958. The appellant is the tenant of the second floor of a house No. 6/29, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The premises in his possession comprise just one room, the barsati. He was inducted into the premises on i2th December 1968 at a rent of Rs. 130. 00 per month.

( 2 ) ON 19th August 1972, the respondent, who is the landlords, instituted a petition for recovery of possession against the appellent. A number of grounds were taken in that petition, but the Additional Rent Controller made an order for recovery of possession only under section 14 (1) (e) of the Act on the ground that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family dependent on him. The other grounds were rejected. This order was made on 1st March 1974. An appeal by the tenant was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 6th January 1978, and the findings of the Additional Rent Controller were affirmed.

( 3 ) AT one time the Supreme Court said that the question whether a land lord required bonafide a premises for his own use and occupation was a mixed question of law and fact which the High Court could go into in second appeal: see Smt. Kamla Soni v. Rup Lal Mehra, 1969 RCR 1017 (S. C. ). Later, however, the Supreme Court expressly dissented from that view and categorically held that it was a pure question of a fact, and the finding thereon could not be impugned in second appeal unless it could be shown that there was an error of low in arriving at it or that it was based on no evidence at all or was arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse : see Mattu Lal v. Radhe Lal, AIR 1974 SC 1596. Counsel for the appellant concentrated on some events which had taken place whilst the appeal was pending before the Rent Control Tribunal to bring the case within the exceptions. In order to deal with his submissions it is necessary to explain how the case developed.

( 4 ) THE landlord was employed as a Pay and Accounts Officer in one of the departments of the Government of India. He built the house in question in 1965 and took a loan from the Government for that purpose. The loan was to be repaid in instalments. He occupied the ground floor himself. It comprises one drawing-cum-dinning room, two bedrooms, one kitchen, one bathroom and a store. The first floor has the same accomadation. It has been let to various tenants from time to time. The second floor comprises just the barsati. That two, was let to various tenants before it was let to the appellant on 12th December 1968.

( 5 ) IN this petition for eviction filed against the appellent on 19th August 1972, the landlord said that he required the premises for use as a residence for himself and the members of his family dependent on him. He said that the accomodation already in his occupation (was) not sufficient for the growing needs of his family and he (had) no other reasonably suitable residential accomodation. These allegalions were denied by the appellant in his reply. He maintained that the accomodation with the landlord was sufficient. and in corroboration said the first floor has been let out and it has fallen vacant several times and the same has been let out to different tenants.

( 6 ) IN his evidence the landlord said that he had four daughters and a son. Three of the daughters were married, and two of them resided in Delhi. The son was married on 13th May 1973, when the petition was pending. Thus, at the time of decision by the Additional Rent Controller, the landlord s family comprised of himself, his wife, an unmarried daughter who was studying for the Higher Secondary Examination, a son and a daughter-in-law. The landlord said that after securing the barsati from the appellant he intended to give it to his son. The Additional Rent Controller found that the accommodation with the landlord was inadequate for his needs, and, therefore, made the orde