JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - This a landlord's petition under Article 226 arising out of an application for release of a flat that had fallen vacant following transfer of a tenant. 2. The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer rejected the application for release holding that the petitioners had ample accommodation in their possession to live viz. (1) a house owned by them is new Civil Lines containing three living rooms besides amenities on the ground-floor and two rooms and amenities on the first floor (2) a flat in the disputed building released in favour of the petitioners, and (3) a rented accommodation in Harpal Nagar occupied by Dhruwn Kumar Saraswat. This accommodation was considered sufficient for petitioner no.1, her five sons of whom one was employed in Hisar and only one more was married who was said to have shifted to flat in item no. 2 and an unmarried daughter. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the application observing that the petitioner's need for release of disputed accommodation was not genuine and bona fide. In revision, the Additional District Judge rejected the revision against this order although he appears to have been inclined to take the view that the District Magistrate should have concentrated on the question whether the premises were required bona fide and whether the accommodation is possession of the petitioner was sufficient. He rejected the revision on the view that an incorrect view of the District Magistrate on the lines indicated above did not justify interference in revision as it could not be regarded to be a case of illegal exercise of jurisdiction. 3. The State has not filed any counter-affidavit in this case. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. I have come to the conclusion that the orders of the authorities below are unsustainable. The mere fact that the number of rooms in possession of the family is considered sufficient for the number of members in the family by the District Magistrate cannot be a ground for holding that the accommodation of which release has been sought is not bona fide required by the family. In this case one of the specific assertions of the petitioner was that two of the sons were to be shortly married. It is also well known that when members grow up living together it quite often poses problems. In this case one of the specific assertions of the petitioner was that two of the sons were to be shortly married. It is also well known that when members grow up living together it quite often poses problems. Therefore, the question of bona fide requirement should have been considered not only from the angle of the space required for number of family members but also from the point of view of their desire and alleged need to have separate units of accommodation for certain members. Again the petitioner's choice regarding the accommodation needed by them out of the two houses has also to get due weight. Only if all these considerations went against the petitioners a finding that the release was not sought bona fide could be justified. Where the approach of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is incorrect and he has failed to apply the correct principles for judging the bona fide character of the application for release it is not a case of mere error in the exercise of jurisdiction but a case of illegal or failure of exercise of jurisdiction and the court of revision has full powers to rectify such an error. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Additional District Judge suffers from a manifest error of law and is unsustainable. 4. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 4.2.78 of the Additional District Judge is quashed. The 1st Additional District Judge (or any other officer to whom the District Judge makes over the case) is directed to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations. In this order, there shall be no order as to costs.