JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J — These three Cases (Civil Revision No. 197 of 1989, Shri Ramesh Chander Sood v. Shri S N. Tripathi Civil Revision No. 204 of 19K9, Shri Ramesh Chander Sood v. Mrs Chattar Singh Negi and Civil Revision No. 96 of 1990, Shri Bihari Lal Chawla v, Shri Ramesh Chander Sood, are being decided by a common judgment since the landlord is common in all of them. Civil Revision No. 197 of 1989 (Shri Ramesh Chander Sood v Shri S. N. Tripathi. 2. The landlord filed eviction petition against the tenant for personal requirement of the premises since he wanted to settle bis family at Solan. The tenant is in occupation of one room, a kitchen, bathroom and latrine against monthly rent of Rs. 90, excluding water and electricity charges. The tenant has not disputed the tenancy and the rate of rent. However, the bonafide requirement of the landlord has been assailed. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord to settle at Solan was bonafide and genuine. Accordingly, eviction of the tenant from the premises was ordered This decision was challenged before the Appellate Authority under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (shortly, Rent Control Act). The appeal has been allowed on June 20,1989. According to the Appellate Court, the landlord failed to substantiate his personal requirement for the premises in dispute. According to the Appellate Court, the posting of the landlord at various places did not establish his ground for eviction of the tenant from the premises since this plea, if permitted* would defeat the provisions of the Act. The assertion of the landlord that there were educational facilities at Solan, was rejected on the basis that the landlord had not proved why such facilities were not available at Boshiarpur or that the facilities at Solan were better than the other place This ground, according to the Appellate Court, did not entitle the landlord to get the eviction of the tenant from the premises. Then, it was also held that the present eviction proceedings related to only one room and it had not been staled by the landlord that eviction proceedings had been filed against other tenants, namely, Mrs. Then, it was also held that the present eviction proceedings related to only one room and it had not been staled by the landlord that eviction proceedings had been filed against other tenants, namely, Mrs. Chattar Singh Negi and Shri Bihari Lal Chawla, and keeping In view the family of the landlord, the eviction against one room accommodation could not he considered to be based on bonafide personal requirement since the landlord should have initiated proceedings against all the three tenants in the premises. Finally, it has also been said that the landlord has ample accommodation available at Boshiarpur to live with his family where he is already living. It is against this decision that the present Civil Revision has been filed under section 74 of the Rent Control Act. Civil Revision No. 96 of 1990. Shri Bihari Lai Chawla v. Shri Ramesh Chander Sood. 3. Alike Civil Revision Petition No. 197 of 1989, Shri Ramesh Chander Sood v. Shri S. N. Tnpathi, the landlord claimed eviction on the bonafide requirement to settle his family at Solan, The tenant is in occupation of three rooms, kitchen, bathroom and latrine etc. against monthly rent of Rs. 30. The tenant has controverted the bonafide requirement of the landlord and it has been said that other portions of the building arc with tenants like Mrs Chattar Singh Negi and Shri S. N Tripathi. The trial Court examined the matter on the basis of the evidence before it. It came to the conclusion that the landlord has established his plea for eviction on personal bonafide requirement. Accordingly decree for eviction was passed. This decision was challenged before the Appellate Court by the tenant, however, without success It has been held by the Appellate Court that it is for the landlord to decide where he would like to reside and settle permanently and the only thing to be seen is that his intention to do so should be bonafide. Consequently the requirement of the landlord was held bona fide and eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was confirmed. It is in these circumstances that the tenant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition in this Court. Civil Revision No. 204 of 1989, Shri Ramesh Chander Sood v. Mrs Chander Singh Negi. 4. Consequently the requirement of the landlord was held bona fide and eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was confirmed. It is in these circumstances that the tenant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition in this Court. Civil Revision No. 204 of 1989, Shri Ramesh Chander Sood v. Mrs Chander Singh Negi. 4. Like the other two above-mentioned cases eviction was also sought on personal requirement by the landlord from the tenant who is in occupation of two room, bathroom, kitchen and latrine etc against monthly rent of Rs 30. The defence of the tenant, inter alia is that the requirement of the landlord is not bonafide. After hearing the parties the Rent Controller rejected the petition on the ground that the landlord had already obtained an order of eviction against two tenants namely Shri S. N.Tripathi and Shri Bihari Lal Chawla relating to accommodation consisting of four rooms, bathrooms, kitchens etc, which would be sufficient for his occupation. Against this order, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority and it was dismissed on July 6, 1989. It appears from the decision that the Appellate Court found that the bona fide requirement of the landlord could not be established from the fact that he had a house at Hoshiarpur where he was living and he could not live in one room accommodation at Solan which could not in any circumstances accommodate his family. It has been noticed that two other tenants were in occupation of some other parts of the premises but it has not been said like the Rent Controller, that the accommodation to be got out of them would be sufficient for the landlord. The present revision petition has been filed by the landlord against this decision. 5. After recording some of the essential facts in these cases separately it is desirable to proceed further to examine the cases simultaneously in the light of the decisions of the Courts below and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The records in all these cases have been perused carefully with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the same it can be seen that on partition this property came to the share of the landlord. At the time of the filing of the petition, his family was living at Hoshiarpur in the house owned by his mother. From the perusal of the same it can be seen that on partition this property came to the share of the landlord. At the time of the filing of the petition, his family was living at Hoshiarpur in the house owned by his mother. He was posted at Dasua branch of the Bank. However, during the course of the proceedings, he was at Kufri Melthi. The landlord has stated that his job is transferable and he wants to settle his family at Solan. He has three daughters and the educational facilities at Dasua were not good. The prevailing conditions in Punjab is also a reason that he wants to shift Ills family to Solan since he goes on moving from place to place. This two storeyed building has six rooms with facilities of bath rooms, kitchen and latrines. He needs 6/7 rooms for his living. In addition to his family of himself, wife and three daughters, he wants accommodation for his mother and married sister with children since she is also dependent on him as her husband is mentally sick. 7. The main stand of the tenants has been that the claim of the landlord is not bonafide since he is already living at Hoshiarpur with his family. Hoshiarpur, according to the tenants, has better educational facili ties and simply because the landlord happens to move from one place to the other on account of his service, the claim for eviction of the tenants does not become bonafide. I am not convinced with this kind of submission. It is undeniable that this property has come to the share of the landlord. He is not in occupation of any other residential accommodation within the municipal limits of Solan. His family is living at Hoshiarpur at present while he is liable to be transferred from place to place. It is apparent from the stand taken by him that on account of his transfers from place to place and the prevailing conditions in Punjab, his intention to settle at Solan in his own house can be considered quite reasonable, genuine and bonafide and the view taken to the contrary cannot be up-held. It is for the landlord to choose a suitable accommodation for his living. It is for the landlord to choose a suitable accommodation for his living. He can, for that purpose, shift from one place to the other and the tenant cannot, in my considered opinion, say that the landlord cannot do so and that the place already in occupation of the landlord at some other place should be held to be sufficient and suitable for his living. It is relevant to quote the observations made by Inderdev Dua, Chief Justice (as he then was) in T. C. Rekhi v. Smt. Usha Gujral, 1970 RCR 292, when the learned Chief Justice noticed in para 8 of the judgment that : "8. The fact that the husband of the landlady has accommodation in Lucknow, is also unhelpful to the appellant because If the family wants to live in Delhi, it can on no reasonable stretch be urged that the accommodation with the husband at Lucknow would be reasonably suitable residential accommodation excluding applicability to clause (e) proviso to section 14 (1). This provision is not intended to compel landlords not to shift to the town in which they have a residential accommodation which is leased out to tenants merely because they may have some residential accommodation in some other town in which they do not want to live any longer. The tenant, cannot in my opinion, decline to vacate the premises bonafide required by the landlord for his residence merely because it is possible for him to live in some other town where he may have a residential accommodation available Such does not seem to me to be the purpose and object of Act and the statutory scheme does not lend support to such intendment. The legislative history to which a passing reference has been made by Shri Kapur has also not induced me to hold to the contrary” Similar was the approach of J. V. Gupta, J», in Bhagwanti v. Hans Raj, 1984(2) RCR 521. 8. Learned Counsel for the tenants placed reliance on Phiroze Bamanj Desai v. Chandrakant M Patel and others, AIR 1974 SC 1059, but this case has been decided on its own facts and no assistance can be drawn by the tenants to sustain their line of submission. 9. As already noticed, the Rent Controller ordered eviction of tenants, namely, S. N. Tripathi and Bihari Lal Chawla. The petition against Mrs. 9. As already noticed, the Rent Controller ordered eviction of tenants, namely, S. N. Tripathi and Bihari Lal Chawla. The petition against Mrs. Chattar Singh was dismissed in view of the fact that eviction orders against the other two tenants had already been passed. The Appellate Court maintained the order of Rent Controller in the case of Chattar Singh but set aside the same in the case of S N. Tripathi. In its view, the claim of the landlord was not bonafide but in the case of Bihari Lal Chawla, the same Appellate Authority accepted the claim of the landlord and confirmed the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. 10. The claim of the landlord has been found bonafide. Accordingly, some accommodation has to be made available for his living in these premises. In my opinion the view taken by the Courts below in Bihari Lal Chawlas case is correct and the same is hereby confirmed. Civil Revision Petition No. 96 of 1990 is, therefore, dismissed From the eviction order in the case of Bibari Lal Chawla, the landlord will get three rooms in addition to other facilities available on the ground floor of the house. 11. Turning to Civil Revision Petition No. 197 of 1989, it can be seen that the defence taken by the tenant is not sustainable. Only a frail plea has been taken by the tenant and no serious attempt has been made to substantiate it. This tenant is in occupation of one room accommodation on the first floor of the house whereas the other two room accommodation is with Mrs. Chattar Singh, widow of Chattar Singh. For the present, the landlord can reasonably live in four rooms accommodation—three rooms coming from Bihari Lal Chawla and one room from S. N Tripathi. Since no arguments were addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, the question whether a married sister whose husband cannot look after her and her children, can be said to be dependant on the landlord and his claim for more accommodation on that account, is left open. 12. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that Civil Revision Petition No. 197 of 1989, Ramesh Chander v. S. N. Tripathi, is allowed, the appellate order is set aside and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller is confirmed. 12. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that Civil Revision Petition No. 197 of 1989, Ramesh Chander v. S. N. Tripathi, is allowed, the appellate order is set aside and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller is confirmed. Civil Revision No, 204 of 1989, Ramesh Chander v. Chattar Singh, is dismissed and the order of the Appellate Authority is confirmed. Civil Revision Petition No 96 of 1990 is hereby dismissed and the order of eviction is hereby confirmed. The parties in all the cases are, however, left to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.