( 1 ) THE petitioner sued the appellant for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. The Controller was not satisfied and he dismissed the petition. In appeal the Tribunal reversed the Order and tenant appealed to the High Court where his appeal was accepted.) Paras 7 to 15 of the High Court Judgement are :-

( 2 ) IN this second appeal by the tenant before me, two main contentions are raised viz. (i) the evidence adduced by the landlady regarding her bonafide necessity to occupy the particular flat presently in the tenant s possession was contrary to her pleading and even otherwise the landlady had failed to prove such bonafide necessity, and (ii) that the landlady was already in occupation of reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The first contention requires a careful understanding of proviso (e) to 14 (1) of the Act. The proviso (e) to section 14 (1) are divisible into two parts viz. (i) those relating to the conduct of the tenant and (ii) those relating to the need of the landlord irrespective of the conduct of the tenant. Proviso (e) falls into the second class. As the conduct of the tenant is quite blameless, it is necessary for the landlord to p