ORDER R.D. Shukla, J.-- 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.9.92 of the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore, whereby the decree of eviction has been passed in favour of the non-applicant-landlord. 2. The brief history or the case is that Smt. Radhabai, the predecessor in interest and mother of present non-applicant filed application under section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the assertions that she is a widow and that she bona fide requires the house for the residence of her son and grandsons. 3. The tenant (applicant herein) contested the claim and pleaded that the landlord wants to enhance the rent and she demanded it to be raised to Rs. 100/per month; and that she does not require the house for the residence of herself or her family members. It was also pleaded that the need is not genuine. 4. During the pendency of this application, Smt. Radhabai died and the present non-applicant Shantaram, who is the son of Radhabai was brought on record, 5. The present non-appellant was a Government servant at the time of his substitution as plaintiff in the case, therefore, he pleaded that as a Government servant, he is entitled fur a government accommodation; but since be is posted at Indore and is having his own house, he cannot be allotted with the same. 6. He further pleaded that his sons have become major, they are married and the need has further increased. 'During the pendency of this application, the non-appellant Shantaram retired from service. He, therefore, put forth further facts showing his bona fide need that two of his sons are married and, therefore, he and two of his sons require three rooms and other three rooms are small which arc used as kitchen, storeroom and place of worship. The 'Dhaliya 'lying vacant on the first floor is dilapidated and is presently being used for keeping various sundry articles. He has further submitted that his five daughters are married but because of his large family, his daughters, sun-in-laws and other relations come off-and-on to his place and, therefore, he requires one independent room (presently in occupation of the tenant-applicant) for being used as guest-room fur the residence of his near relations. 7. He has further submitted that his five daughters are married but because of his large family, his daughters, sun-in-laws and other relations come off-and-on to his place and, therefore, he requires one independent room (presently in occupation of the tenant-applicant) for being used as guest-room fur the residence of his near relations. 7. It appears, out of the rooms referred above, one room was vacated by the tenant and, therefore, further objection was put up by the tenant (applicant); firstly, that the need of Shantaram, present applicant, cannot be looked into as he is not the original plaintiff in the case - he has come after the substitution. Therefore, the need of original landlord Smt. Rudhabai only can be looked into; secondly, after taking the vacant possession of the room occupied by the other tenant, the need is satisfied and now, therefore, he cannot claim further room for receiving his guests and the requirement of his daughters and son-in-laws cannot be taken into account. 8. After hearing the parties, learned Rent Controlling Authority has found: (i) Since Shantaram, present non-applicant, has been substituted as landlord and has retired also from service and, therefore, the subsequent event can be taken into consideration; (ii) secondly, the seven rooms, allegedly occupied by the non-applicant landlord contains only three living rooms which arc presently being used by the non-applicant Shantaram and his two major married sons and three other rooms arc small one which arc being used as kitchen, store-room and place of worship. The Dhaliya' is unfit fur habitation and is being used for keeping sundry articles and, therefore, the need of the landlord for facilitating the residence of his near relations including his daughters and son-in-laws still exists. As such decree of eviction, as referred above, has been passed in favour of the landlord. Hence this Revision. 9. The main grounds of attack in the revision, as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, arc as follows :- (i) The alleged bona fide requirement of Shantmam who' has been substituted after the filing of the application, cannot he looked into; and (ii) The need of married daughters and son-in-laws cannot be taken into consideration for passing the decree of eviction. Learned counsel further tried to submit that the finding is perverse. 10. The revision against the under of Rent Controlling Authority has been provided under section 23-E of the Act. Learned counsel further tried to submit that the finding is perverse. 10. The revision against the under of Rent Controlling Authority has been provided under section 23-E of the Act. Since the legislature has prohibited appeal against the order of Rent Controlling Authority and, therefore, the power of revision conferred on the High Court is wider than section 115 C.P.C. The High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, has the power to look into the correctness of the finding regarding bona fide need of the landlord. But while examining the correctness of the finding, the High Court could not act as a Court of appeal and re-appreciate evidence to come to its own conclusion. [Mahendra Kumar v. Dharamchand: ( 1986 JLJ 145 = 1985 MPLJ 80]. 11. Learned Rent Controlling Authority has discussed the evidence in detail and the finding of fact with respect to tilte size of the family of the non-applicant and the rooms in occupation of the landlord have not been seriously challenged. 12. Now, therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the need of present nun-applicant-landlord, who has been substituted after the death of Radhabai, can be looked into. Admittedly Radhabai was widow and was mother of present non-applicant Shantaram. It is also an admitted fact that Shantaram has retired from service and is presently residing in the vacant portion of the house and he has been substituted as plaintiff in place of her mother. 13. In almost all cases of eviction suits, where possession is sought for personal requirement, the: requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of action but must subsist till final decree or an order for eviction is made. If in the meantime, events have cropped up which show that the landlord's requirement is satisfied, then in that case, his action must fail [Hasmatrai v. Raghunath Prasad: 1981 JLJ 716 = AIR 1981 SC 1711 ]. In similar way, while showing the subsistence of the personal requirement, the landlord would be entitled to demonstrate the increase in the requirement also. 14. Admittedly, non-applicant Shantaram is the son who was living jointly with his mother Radhabai, his two sons, as found by the learned Rent Controlling Authority while has also not been challenged seriously, are living with him. 14. Admittedly, non-applicant Shantaram is the son who was living jointly with his mother Radhabai, his two sons, as found by the learned Rent Controlling Authority while has also not been challenged seriously, are living with him. Sinn: the subsequent events can be looked into; the enhancement in the need of Shantaram can also be looked into while passing the decree of eviction. 15. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, where the legal representatives of this original landlord, who has filed the suit has been brought on record, they are entitled to show their need because of subsequent events. It may not be out of place to mention it here that because of the subsequent events, if their need is wholly satisfied, they will definitely be non-suited. In this case, therefore, if the personal requirement of the substituted landlord has increased because of the substituted event, he is entitled to demonstrate and prove it and it has rightly been accepted by the Rent Controlling Authority. 16. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred a case reported in 1986 JLJ 713 Lalta Prasad v. Ramcharan; and contended that the requirement of the son of Shantaram cannot be looked into. I do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel as in that case referred to above, it was found that the son was not living jointly with the landlord. It is not the case here. Admittedly, two sons of the landlord Shantaram are living with him. 17. Now it has to be seen whether the non-applicant landlord is entitled to the vacant possession of the suit accommodation on grounds of need for accommodating his daughters and son-in-laws and other relations. 18. In Indian Society, almost every person is required to receive and entertain his relations and is further required to accommodate them during their stay with such relations. The need of a guest-room is not the need of the guest but it will be the need of the landlord himself. 19. The landlord's married daughter, son-in-law and other relations themselves may not be entitled to get any tenanted premises vacated on their own right but the landlord would definitely be entitled to get the room vacated if lie genuinely requires the room for being used as guest room for the residence of his or her near relations during their visit. 19. The landlord's married daughter, son-in-law and other relations themselves may not be entitled to get any tenanted premises vacated on their own right but the landlord would definitely be entitled to get the room vacated if lie genuinely requires the room for being used as guest room for the residence of his or her near relations during their visit. In this case, since .the landlord non-applicant admittedly has five married daughters and, therefore, either of them must be visiting the landlord off-and-on. He, therefore, would require separate room for accommodating his daughters and the son-in-laws during their visit to the house of the "father...or father-in-law, as the case may be, is necessary looking to the traditions and the living conditions of the Indian Society. Thus, maintenance of a guest room or a separate room for accommodating the visiting daughters and son-in-laws would be deemed to be the personal requirement of the landlord. 20. In this case, since there is no separate room other than presently being used as residential room by non-applicant Shantaram and his two sons, the requirement appears to be genuine and bona fide. Shantaram is, therefore, entitled for vacant possession of the mom presently occupied by the tenant-applicant. 21. As a result of the discussion above, the revision petition fails and is dismissed with cost. Counsel fee Rs. 200/- if certified. The applicant-tenant shall deliver vacant possession of the tenanted premises within two months from today.