A landlord is entitled to evict a tenant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity if he needs the premises for his residence and he has no other suitable accommodation available.

( 1 ) THE second appeal under S. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Act ) has been filed by the tenant against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 9th January, 1975, by which it has, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal, dismissed it on merits, thereby affirming the order of the Additional Controller, dated 13th September, 1973 finally ordering eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute on the ground of bona fide personal necessity.

( 2 ). The dispute between the parties relates to one room in B 34, Inder puri. New Delhi, which was let out by the respondent landlord to the appellant on a rent of Rs. 25. 00 per month The respondent instituted a petition for eviction on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) (c) and (e) of the provision to sub-section (1) of the section 14 of the Act, but the other grounds of eviction did not survive and eviction has been ordered only on the ground of personal bona fide necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso. The eviction petition was contested by the appellant. The Additional Controller and the Tribunal have both come to the conclusion that respondent landlord hona fide needed the premises for residence of himself and members of his family within the meaning of the relevant clause (e) and so eviction of the appellant has been ordered.

( 3 ). Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the respondent landlord has in his possession five rooms, two of which are used by him for residence of the members of his family, while of the remaining three rooms, two are used for tethering buffaloes and the third for keeping fodder, and that the respondent landlord can easily acquire vacant possession of the aforesaid one or more rooms for his residence and that his application for eviction of human beings while housing his buffaloes is not bona fide and the findings of the Tribunal qelow must be reversed.

( 4 ). I have heard the counsel for the parties. The findings of the Court below is that the family of the respondent landlord consists of himself, his wife, three sons and three daughters and they are residing in two rooms : obviously accommodation in those two rooms cannot be said to be reasonably suitable and both the rent control authorities below have answered the point in favour of the respondent landlord. The question that has been raised before me is whether the respondent landlord is bound to have the three rooms used for tethering his cattle and keeping fodder vacated to house himself. It is in evidence that the respondent bad been carrying on the dairy business earlier than he let out the room in dispute to the appellant. Whether carrying on the dairy business and tethering cattle in residential looms are or legally, not in accordance with by-laws of the Delhi Municipal Corporation is not relevant consideration for purposes of this appeal (see Smt Krishnawati v. Hand Raj ). The fact remains that the aforesaid three rooms are not available to the respondent for his residence and the accommodation otherwise available with the respondent landlord is insufficient. The landlord is entitled to make himself more comfortable in his own property and it does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to dictate to the landlord how he should acquire additional accommodation to make himself comfortable.

( 5 ). In T. S. Devgun v. S. P. Walia, I had, discussed a decision of this court in Fready Fernandes v. P. L. Mehra and a Division Bench decision in Rup Lal Mehra v. Kamla Soni, and then I observed that although the landlord was entitled to be more comfortable by occupying his own house and in deciding his needs the social customs of society could not be completely ruled out as irrelevant, yet "the landlord has to establish to the satisfaction of the Controller, firstly he requires the residential premises bona fide for occupation as a residence for himself and/or for any members of his