(1) LEAVE granted. (2) HEARD counsel on both sides. The appellant is the landlord. He is residing in a building which belonged to his deceased father and now devolved upon him and his brothers under their fathers Will. The upstairs portions of the building have been bequeathed to two of appellants brothers. The appellant is at present residing on the first floor of the building. The appellant has been bequeathed a portion of the ground floor of the building and his tenant (the respondent herein) is at present occupying that premises. Since the appellant was asked by his brothers to whom the upstairs portions have been bequeathed to vacate the upstairs portions which he is now occupying, he called upon the tenant to vacate the downstairs portion which has been bequeathed to him under his fathers Will. Since the tenant did not leave the premises, as required by the appellant, he initiated proceedings before the Rent Controller. (3) THE Rent Controller on appreciation of the evidence found that the appellant-landlord was in bona fide need of the premises in question and his application for eviction of the tenant under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was allowed. The tenant approached the High court in revision. The High court, re-appreciating the evidence, held that the landlord was not in requirement of the premises in question. This the High court was not entitled to do in revision proceedings. See the decision of this court in Hiralal Kapur v. Prabhu Chowdhury , and Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High court and restore the order of the Rent Controller. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs. (4) MR Sanghi, appearing for the appellant, fairly submits that without prejudice to the appellants right to initiate proceedings for execution, the tenant would not be physically evicted for a period of 1 1/2 years from today. The submission at the Bar is recorded.