The main legal point established in the judgment is that it is not essential for the landlord to personally testify, and evidence provided by a competent representative can be considered to prove the landlord's bona fide need for eviction.

1. The common revision petitioner in these two C.R.Ps. is the landlord of a line building having three apartments. The respondents herein are the tenants of two of such apartments. The landlord filed separate petitions for eviction of these tenants on two grounds, namely, (1) for her own occupation and (2) arrears of rent. All the authorities below held against her on ground No.l and eviction was ordered only on the second ground.

2. Rent Control Petition No. 186 of 1978, before the Rent Controller, Cannanore, from which C.R.P.No.3626 of 1981 arises is in respect of room No.516. That Rent Control Petition was disposed of on 11th December, 1978. While discussing the question of bona fide need of the landlord the Rent Control Court observed that the landlord herself has not given evidence and only her husband is examined as P.W.1. The Rent Control Court treated this as an important circumstance against the landlord. Another ground on which the Rent Control Court rejected the ground of bona fide need of the landlord, is that there was a prior Rent Control Petition for eviction of the third apartment in this line building. Although by Ext.A-6 order eviction was allowed, that apartment was again let out to the wife of the original tenant under Ext.A-7 for an enhanced rent.

3. The other Rent Control Petition, namely, R.C.P.No.185 of 1978 before the same Rent Controller from which C.R.P.No.3621 of 1981 arises which is in respect of room No.517, was disposed of subsequently on 6th January 1979. In that order the Rent Control Court practically adopted the very same reasoning and dismissed that petition also. In the appeals filed by the landlord, the Appellate Authority also adopted the very same reasoning. The Revisional Court confirmed these orders by a common order.

4. The first ground on which the claim of bona fide need of landlord is rejected is that the landlord herself is not examined. The learned counsel for the tenants placed reliance on Nandlal Goverdhandas & Co. v. Samratbai (A.I.R.1981 Bombay 1), where it was held as follows:

1122 The bona fide requirement is in the first place a stale of mind though it may be something more. It must, therefore, be deposed to by the person who is requiring the premises under S.13(1) (g) namely, the landlord. If the landlord does not step into the witness-box to bring before the court legal evidence for proving bis requirement, then it cannot be said that he reasonably and bona fide requires the premises as mentioned in S.13(1) (g). The landlord can delegate the authority to conduct a case but he cannot delegate the duty to depose.

23 The respondent, who is the landlady, has not been examined in support of her case nor has she been examined as a witness on commission. On this ground alone the suit of the respondent ought to have been dismissed because the bona fide requirement which, as I have mentioned above is a state of mind and something more must be proved in this case. Ramanlal. the respondent's son, is said to be her constituted attorney but that could only be for the purpose of conducting the case but bis evidence cannot be substituted for the legal evidence of the landlady herself."

5. However, the learned counsel for the landlord contended that it is not necessary that the landlord should go to the witness-box and depose about his bona fide requirement and that he can prove the landlord's requirement in any manner allowed by law. In support of this contention he relied on the following judgments.

6. In Narasimhachari v. Kanakasabapathi (1964) IM.L.J. 256) the Madras High Court held as follows:

"When we consider the question whether the landlord requires the building bonafide for his own use, we have to bear in mind whether the premises may be required reasonably and bona fide. It is the duty of the Court to see whether the premises are required both reasonably and bona fide. Bona fides may be proved in an ordinary way like any other fact. There is no such rule of law that bona