Judgment :- This is a landlord’s revision petition challenging the rejection of his claim for possession of the tenanted premises mainly on the ground of his bona fide requirement for personal occupation. We are not concerned in this case with the other ground on which the claim for possession was made that the building has been used for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out. The circumstances put forth by the landlord in support of his claim for personal occupation were that he is now staying at Ponneri in Chingleput District and that with a view to get his three daughters married and to facilitate fixing proper alliances for them, he is required to stay in the City of Madras. His further case was that if he resides in the City of Madras, he would be able to help his sons in getting better jobs and that since his income is meagre, he also wants to start a business in the City of Madras. 2. The learned Rent Controller, however, took the view that the landlord had not taken any steps for starting any business in the City of Madras and that as two of his sons are already employed, it was highly improbable that they would leave the present jobs and search for better jobs by settling down in Madras. Holding that it was not the petitioner’s case that his sons are employed in the City of Madras, the Rent Controller rejected the case of the petitioner that he was going to settle down in Madras permanently. He also took the view that rental Income was the main source of income of the landlord and having regard to the scarcity of accommodation in Madras where higher rents will be obtained, it was improbable that the landlord wanted to do away with the rental income. 3. Before the Appellate Authority, the maintainability of the petition for eviction was itself challenged and the Appellate Authority took the view that since the petitioner was not residing in any building of his own in the City of Madras, the petition was maintainable. The Appellate Authority, took the view that except the bare statement of the landlord that he wants to find alliances for his daughters, there was no other circumstance to show that it was necessary for the landlord to take up his residence in the City of Madras. The Appellate Authority, took the view that except the bare statement of the landlord that he wants to find alliances for his daughters, there was no other circumstance to show that it was necessary for the landlord to take up his residence in the City of Madras. Holding that the City of Madras and Ponneri were connected by electric trains, the Appellate Authority took the view that it was not necessary for the petitioner to take up residence in the City of Madras. It further held that the petitioner can well procure better jobs for his two sons even while residing at Ponneri. With regard to his need for carrying on a business in the City of Madras, the Appellate Authority found that there was nothing to show that he had made preparations for starting any business. It observed that the petitioner being in indigent circumstances, he would not choose to forgo the rent realisable from the premises in question by shifting his residence from Ponneri Town to the City of Madras. It doubted the statement of the landlord that he would shift from Ponneri where he had been staying for the last about twenty years. The appeal thus came to be dismissed. 4. On hearing the learned Counsel for the landlord and tenant, it appears to me that both the Rent Control authorities had misdirected themselves when they questioned the bona fides of the need of the landlord. It is not for the Rent Control authorities to decide as to where a landlord should stay and unless it is found that the claim of the landlord that he wants to shift from a place in the mofussil to the City of Madras was not bona fide, there was no justification for rejecting the case of the landlord on the ground that the landlord had been staying in the mofusil for about 20 years. When a house owner pleads that he wants to shift to Madras to facilitate the search for a match for his daughter a practical view has to be taken in such a case. Such a plea cannot be rejected on the ground that the suburban train connects Madras with the mofussil. It is impossible to dispute that if a person wants to get his daughters married he would be interested in searching for a boy who is well-placed. Such a plea cannot be rejected on the ground that the suburban train connects Madras with the mofussil. It is impossible to dispute that if a person wants to get his daughters married he would be interested in searching for a boy who is well-placed. In such a case, ao one can also dispute that staying in the City of Madras would facilitate the starch for a proper alliance. The petitiorer in this case has three daughters to get married. It has been stated before me and it does not seem to be in dispute that the daughters for whom the petitioner wanted to find alliances by shifting to Madras are still unmarried. He has commenced these proceedings early in the year 1981 and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that a highly technical and impractical view taken by the lower courts could well be the cause to some extent of their remaining unmarried. The circumstances that there are electric trains which connect Ponneri and Madras is hardly a consolation for a person who alone knows what difficulties he has to face when he has to search for a suitable alliance. Shuttling between the mofussil and the City of Madras every day by an electric train is bound to result in hardship which could be easily relieved by allowing him to occupy his own house in Madras. There can be no doubt that having a residential place in Madras is bound to facilitate a search for good match for the daughters of the petitioner.- We must also take note of the fact that given a choice, a girl would like to have her home also in the City of Madras as compared with a home in the mofussil. 5. It is also difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the Rent Control authorities that a person can search for better jobs for his sons in Madras by staying outside Madras. This again discloses a highly impractical approach to the problem faced by the landlord. For searching for better jobs, one has to have contacts and meet the right persons at the right time. One has to be always on the lookout for good opportunities. This can never be done by staying in the mofussil if the jobs to be searched are in a metropolitan City like Madras. 6. For searching for better jobs, one has to have contacts and meet the right persons at the right time. One has to be always on the lookout for good opportunities. This can never be done by staying in the mofussil if the jobs to be searched are in a metropolitan City like Madras. 6. The argument that the landlord is in indigent circumstances and, therefore, he would not like to be deprived of his rental income is again unwarranted. The landlord is the best person to decide where he should stay and how he should maintain himself. The very fact that the landlord is prepared to have the tenant evicted would itself indicate that the advantages which the landlord estimates he will enjoy as a result of staying in the City of Madras will outweigh the benefit in the form of the rental income which he gets by way of rent. In so far as the need for starting a new business is concerned, even the finding recorded by the Rent Control authorities that the landlord is in indigent circumstances would be enough to warrant a conclusion that his need to start a busines in Madras is bona fide. The facts of the present case clearly disclose that the landlord’s case does not suffer, in any way, from want of bona fides and both the courts were clearly in error in rejecting the claim of the landlord on hypothetical considerations. 7. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The orders of the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller rejecting the petition of the landlord are set aside. The petition for eviction is allowed and it is held that the landlord would be entitled to the possession of the premises in the occupation of the tenant. 8. It has to be noted that during the course of the hearing the landlord had offered to the tenant alternative accommodation which is equivalent to the accommodation which had fallen vacant in the portion upstairs but which, according to the landlord, was insufficient for him because his family consisted of eight persons. The landlord had not, therefore, occupied identical premises when they had fallen vacant and had let them out. Some premises are now available in the same building which have been offered by the landlord to the tenant. Mr. The landlord had not, therefore, occupied identical premises when they had fallen vacant and had let them out. Some premises are now available in the same building which have been offered by the landlord to the tenant. Mr. Raju appearing on behalf of the tenant took time to find out whether the tenant was willing to shift to those premises. Today, however, he has made a statement that the tenant is not willing to shift to the vacant premises. 9. The only alternative, therefore, is that the tenant will have to face eviction. Mr. Raju for the tenant prays that six months’ time may be granted. This request can be allowed only on the express condition that the tenant files an undertaking in the form of an affidavit given to this court that he will vacate the premises without the landlord being required to take execution proceedings. 10. The tenant shall vacate the premises on or before 30th of September, 1986 subject to the express condition that within a week from today, the tenant shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that he will deliver vacant possession of premises to the landlord on or before 30.9.1986. In the meantime, he will also continue to pay to the landlord an amount equal to the rent for the period during which he will continue to be in occupation. It is expressly directed that the payment of this amount by the tenant and receipt of the same by the landlord will not enable the tenant to raise a contention that any fresh tenancy has been created in his favour. The petitioner is entitled to costs of this petition - Costs Rs.250. If the affidavit is not filed within one week, the landlord will be entitled to execute the order for eviction.