S. Sanganathan ( 1 ) THAT such notice, as aforesaid, was valid. ( 2 ) FURTHER that such notice should be construed in a common sense way and not in a hyper-critical manner. ( 3 ) THAT it is no doubt possible that, in some cases, even at the stage of granting leave, some of the pleas taken by the tenant may be found to be frivolous or without substance and, as pointed out by Sachar,j. in Viraj Lal Mani Lal and Co. v. Satish Swarup Gupta (1978-I R. C. R. 231) the Rent Con- roller (or the Court in revision) may restrict the leave granted to one or some of the objections raised. It is a question for consideration in each case whether the leave to contest has been given in general terms or whether it is restrictive in any respect. I ( 4 ) FURTHER that at the stage of granting the tenant leave to contest, the Controller only addresses himself to the question whether the tenant s affidavit discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord to an eviction order under clause (e ). It is, generally speaking, a prima facie conclusion that he reaches at this stage of the case and once leave is granted, the appli- cation will have to be heard and disposed of in the usual manner after consi- dering afresh the contents of the application for eviction and the written statement and the other evidence in the case. ( 5 ) THAT it is necessary to remember that the High Court exercises under Section 25b (8) only revisional and no appellate jurisdiction. Under this sub-section, the High Court has to examine the records in order to satisfy itself that the decision of the controller is "according to law", the same words as have been used for in Section 25 the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. It is well settled that though this expression confers a revisional jurisdiction wider than that under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. still it has its limitations. It is well settled that though this expression confers a revisional jurisdiction wider than that under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. still it has its limitations. ( 6 ) FURTHER that some of the instances where the High Court may interfere under the sub-section are where the order of the Rent Controller is without jurisdiction or contrary to law or to the express provisions of the Act; where he has arrived at findings which are wholly perverse and contrary to evidence or based on no evidence; or where some procedural irregularity has been committed resulting in miscarriage of justice. But the High Courf^ will not sit in judgment over mere findings of fact arrived at by the Control- ler on the evidence before him or interfere merely because possibly on the same facts, it is likely that another court may come to a different conclusion. ( 7 ) THAT where the residence of a member, e. g. , nephew with the landlord was borne out by entries in the ration card, supported by the landlord s statement, and there was no evidence contrary except the tenant s bare statement, it was not necessary to produce the nephew and he was proved to be a member of the landlord s family. ( 8 ) FURTHER that the mere fact that the names of the disputed mem- bers were entered in the ration card only in May, 1976 does not mean that they came to live with the petitioner only on the date of such entry. Basically it is only sometime after a person comes in that an application is made to the rationing authorities; again, it takes some time for the necessary entries to be made in the ration card, particularly in a case of this type where the authori- ties have to varify whether the names of those persons have been deleted at the other end. ( 9 ) THAT the expression family should be read in the narrow and restricted sense of a nuclear family of a husband, wife, their children and no others. The expression has to be interpreted reasonably and fairly, giving due regard to the social and economic conditions of living in our country and particularly the circumstances of the case. ( 10 ) FURTHER that the word himself would include not only the land- lord but also "any normal emanations of himself. The expression has to be interpreted reasonably and fairly, giving due regard to the social and economic conditions of living in our country and particularly the circumstances of the case. ( 10 ) FURTHER that the word himself would include not only the land- lord but also "any normal emanations of himself. " What such normal emanations are would depend on the ways of life in the country and the facts and circumstances of the case. In normal Hindu Society, even today, there are families in which the parents, brothers, sisters and their children of one member live with him. ( 11 ) FURTHER that where a member is living in a cosmopolitan or capi- tal city, the children of brothers and sisters who come to the city for educa- tion, for a job, not in frequently came in to stay as members of the family and this is particularly so in view of the increasing rents in the city which pre- clude them from setting up independent residence straightway. ( 12 ) FURTHER that a person normally accustomed to live with the landlord comes within the expression himself , and his need is that of the landlord. It is not necessary that such person should have resided with the landlord for a substantial period before the relevant date. ( 13 ) FURTHER that even though a married daughter may not be a mem- ber of the landlord s family any longer, the requirements of such a married daughter can be taken into account in assessing the requirements of the landlord himself" ( 14 ) FURTHER that the Rent Controller should, in assessing the land- lords requirement, also take into consideration that his son might be married shortly. ( 15 ) THAT it often happens that a petitioner in his anxiety over-states his case, but that does not mean that the ground put forward for seeking eviction should also be disbelieved, if otherwise established, merely because the plea of temporarily letting is disbelieved. ( 16 ) THAT many people who live in rented accommodation, initially occupy small portions and try to scrape up enough savings to construct a house. The fact that they are occupying very small accommodation initially should not be made the basis of denying them good and proper accommodation of their own when they need it and when they can afford it. The fact that they are occupying very small accommodation initially should not be made the basis of denying them good and proper accommodation of their own when they need it and when they can afford it. The manner of past living is, therefore, not relevant and at any rate, not conclusive.