RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, J.

1. Briefly the case of Smt. Savitri Devi, respondent, is that the property in dispute was owned by Dr. C. M. Paul who had given it on lease to Jag Dutta, petitioner, She purchased the property from Dr. Paul vide sale deed dated April 18, 1968. Consequently Jag Dutta became a tenant under her. She filed an application for ejectment of Jag Dutta, tenant, on the ground that he had not paid arrears of rent and that she required the premises in dispute for her own use and occupation. The application was contested by Jag Dutta. He tendered the rent on the first date of hearing which was duly accepted by the landlady. The tenant however controverted the allegation regarding her personal necessity. He further pleaded that the premises were non-residential and as such the ground of personal necessity was not available to her He also challenged the validity of the notice by which his tenancy had been terminated. The Rent Controller held that the property in dispute was a residential building and the land-lady required the same for her personal use and occupation. He further held that the tenancy had been validly terminated by the authorities. Consequently he