JUDGMENT T. R. Handa, J.—The petitioner landlord brought an action under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act for ejectment of his tenant, the present respondent from the premises in his tenancy. The relevant grounds on which the petition was filed were as follows : (i) That the petitioner is very much in need of the premises in the occupation of the respondent for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his son who is recently going to be married and for the use and occupation of his other family members and thus the premises are required bona fide, (ii) That the petitioner is not occupying any residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned nor has he vacated any such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application. 2. The pleas of the petitioner found favour with the Rent Controller who vide his order dated 17-2-1978 directed the respondent tenant to put the petitioner landlord into vacant possession of the demised premises. The respondent-tenant thereafter approached the Appellate Authority in appeal. Before the Appellate Authority, the present petitioner moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. praying for permission to amend the above quoted paragraphs of his petition containing grounds of ejectment so as to substitute these paragraphs by the following paragraphs : (i) That the petitioner requires the premises under the occupation of the respondent for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of his married son who is not occupying any other building as his residence in the urban area of Simla and who has also not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. The premises in question are required by the petitioner bona fide accordingly. (ii) That the premises occupied by the petitioner owned by him in the urban area of Simla are not sufficient for the occupation of his family members as well as for himself and the petitioner has also not vacated without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of this application in the said urban area. 3. The necessity for applying this amendment arose as the son of the petitioner got married during the pendency of the proceedings. 3. The necessity for applying this amendment arose as the son of the petitioner got married during the pendency of the proceedings. At the time when the petitioner filed his initial application for ejectment, his son was not married though his marriage was under contemplation and for that reason the petitioner had alleged that he required the premises for his son who was recently going to be married. Subsequently the son was actually married and the petitioner, therefore, sought to amend his petition so as to bring this subsequent development on the record. 4. The learned Appellate Authority vide its order dated 31-5-1979 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the petition on the plea that the proposed amendment amounted to introduction of a new case. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties I am of the view that the amendment prayed for by the petitioner was not necessary for the purposes of determining the real controversy between the parties and that on the basis of the pleadings already on the record it was open to the petitioner to prove this subsequent development and to claim ejectment of the respondent to meet the requirements of his married son. 6. The concept of bona fide requirement within the meaning of section 14 of the Act is not to be narrowly understood nor it need be too vigorously interpreted. While construing this provision, the dominant object as also the history behind the Rent Control legislation must be kept in view. Under the common law prior to the enactment of the Rent Control legislations landlord had ample rights to eject his tenants from his property. To meet the social requirements of the society which was facing the problem of acute shortage of housing accommodation a considerable part of such ink rights of the landlord to seek eviction of his tenants has been taken away by the rent control legislation. The Legislature, however in its wisdom has intentionally permitted the landlord to still retain with a remnant of his rights which is an incidence of ownership, to enable him to evict his tenant in case he required his property bona fide for his own occupation. The Legislature, however in its wisdom has intentionally permitted the landlord to still retain with a remnant of his rights which is an incidence of ownership, to enable him to evict his tenant in case he required his property bona fide for his own occupation. It is in this background that the provisions of section 14 of the Act to the extent they enable the landlord to seek eviction of his tenant for meeting his own requirements, are to be construed. Any construction placed on such provisions must be in furtherance of the aforesaid intention of the Legislature. 7. Looking from the practical point of view it would, therefore, be too much to insist that the landlord must allege an existing urgent need before he can knock at the door of the Controller with his prayer for ejectment of his tenant to meet his own personal requirements. It should in my view be considered sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act if the landlord makes out a case in his petition that his personal requirement as recognized by the Act is reasonably likely to arise in the very near future. We cannot ignore the fact that some time has to be taken before a final decision is reached on such an action brought by the landlord for eviction of his tenant. The Legislature certainly did not intend that the landlord or his family members must be put on the road before he can avail of his right to seek eviction of his tenant on the ground of personal requirement. Under the circumstances it was a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Act if the landlord had mentioned, as was done in the instant case, that his son was going to be married in the near future and required the premises for his said son. Under the circumstances it was a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Act if the landlord had mentioned, as was done in the instant case, that his son was going to be married in the near future and required the premises for his said son. The Act entitles a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant on the ground that he requires the premises for the use and occupation of the married son and as already stated a landlord can very well approach the Controller for seeking ejectment of his tenant on this ground on the allegations that it is reasonably likely that his son is going to be married in the very near future and the premises are bona fide required for his occupation* The prayer for amendment to this extent was, therefore, not called for and need be rejected though for reasons different from those given by the learned Appellate Authority. The remaining portion of the amendment prayed for was not pressed. In fact the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the observations made above did not press his application for amendment any more. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Petition dismissed. -