The tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction against the petitioner on three grounds: (1) wilful default in payment of the rents, (2) use of the premises for a purpose other than that for which it had been let and (3) requirement of the building by the respondent bona fide for his own occupation. The petition was resisted by the petitioner contending that there has been no wilful default in payment of the rents, that the building has not been put to a different use and that the requirement of the respondent-landlord for his own occupation was not at all bona fide. The Rent Controller held that the alleged wiful default has not been made out and that the premises also has not been used for a different purpose by the petitioner. On the question of owner’s occupation the respondent has referred in his eviction petition to section 10 (3) (a) (i) but the evidence adduced on his behalf was to the effect that his family has been in occupation of a room in the premises in question, that the room is found to be quite insufficient for the occupation of the family, and that therefore he requires the premises for additional accommodation