( 1 ) THIS is a landlord s second appeal, his apolication for eviction of the tenant having been dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal reversing the finding of the Rent Controller, who was of the opinion that he had made out a case of personal bona fide requirement by him of the accommodation with the tenant. A second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law according to sub-section (2) of section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The learned counsel for the tenant urges that the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal whether the requirement of the premises for personal occupation claimed by the landlord is born Me or not, is a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the second appeal Normally this is so. The learned counsel for the landlord points out first that the Rent Control Tribunal has erred in basing its finding that on the first floor of the house, in which practically half of tha ground-floor is with the tenant, there are three rooms in front of the room in the occupation of the landlord which are also with him, but it is the statement of the tenant himself that those three rooms, marked by red pencil as A-B-C in the plan A. I, are in fac