The word 'himself' in the context of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1938, should be interpreted broadly to include not only the landlord or the landlady alone, but also the members of their family who are living with them and are dependent on them.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1938, (hereinafter to be called as the Act) against the Judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 28th May, 1970, by which he affirmed the Judgment of the Additional Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute.

( 2 ) THE respondent landlady filed an application for eviction of the appellant from the premises on the ground floor of house No. A6/10, Rana Partap Bagh, Delhi, on the ground that she required the premises bonafide for herself and for the residence of herself and the members of her family dependant upon her. The appellant contested the applica and pleading that there was no relationship between landlord and tenant between the parties. He further disputed that the respondent-landlady bona finde required the premises fos herself and for the members of her family. The learned Additional Rent Controller by his judgment dated 18th October, 1968 found that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent and that the respondent is the owner of the property. The Additional Rent Controller also found that the family members of the appellant consisted of : (a) herself, (b) her husband, (e) (i) two married sons with wives; (e) third son who. ?as not married (e) (iii) two grand children. The landlady had mentioned that her 4th son was living separately in a portion of the house on the upper storey. In calculating the members of the family for the purpose of the petition the requirements of the 4th son was not taken into account by the Additional Rent Controller. The Addititional Rent Controller also found that the accommodation with the landlady and the other members of the family consisted of three rooms, one baithak, one small kitchen, bath WC, two varandahs and some open courtyard on both sides of the premises. But the said accommodation was held not sufficient for the landlady and her family, and he, therefore, found that she needed the accommodation in possession of the appellant bona fide. He, therefore, ordered the eviction of the appellant.

( 3 ) AN appeal was filed by the appellant but the same was dismissed by the Rent Controle Tribunal and affirmed the 2ri-liag of the Additional Rent Controller.

( 4 ) MR. Rawal, the learned counsel for the appellant tenant does not dlspute the finding that there exists relations of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent. He also does not dispute the extent of accommodation with the respondent and her members of the family that was found by the courts below. Mr. Rawal also does not seriously dispute that if the requirements of the respondent and her family consisting of herself, her husband, three sons, wives of the two sons and two grand children, was to be taken into account the accommodation with the respondent landlady could not be held to be sufficient and the findings of the courts below that she bona fide needed it for herself and for her family members dependant upon her cannot be objected to. He, however, has strongly urged that the requirement? of statutes is that eviction will only be ordered if the premises are required bona fide by the landlady for occupation as resident for herself or any members of her family dependent upon her. It is the contention of Mr. Rawal that there has been no finding given by the courts below that the three sons were dependant on the landlady and, therefore, he submits that no order of eviction could be passed against the appellant by taking into account the requirements of accommodation for not only the dependent but also her sons. Mr. Rawal does not object to the courts below having taken into account the requirements of the husband as the requirement of the landlady but says that even if the requirement of the respondent and her husband taken into account the present accommodation with them which as already stated consisted of three rooms, one baith