M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is tenants petition filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, the Act) challenging the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the demised premises are bona fide required by the landlord-respondent for his personal use and occupation because of the old age and illness of the wife of the landlord-respondent. It has also been found that the landlord-respondent is about 70 years of age and on account of his fractured leg in an accident it is difficult for him to continue staying on the first floor. He has also proved the fact that his wife has developed heart problem and climbing stairs by her is not possible. The findings recorded by the Rent Controller on the question of personal necessity which are affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority read as under;-

"24. Now the crucial question thus arises for determination is whether evidence placed on the file by the petitioner is sufficient to hold the personal necessity of the petitioner regarding tenancy premises. Petitioner examined Dr. A.K. Jain as PW1 he categorically deposed that Pushpa Jain