JUDGMENT This is a revision against an order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur dated 11.2.1992 in Case No. 60-A/90 (7) 83-84passing an order of ejectment on the ground that Smt. Rampyari Bai, the, landlady, being a widow, old and having no issues requires the premises bona fide for her own use. The said order is challenged in this revision on the ground that the non-applicant had another suitable accommodation in Bilaspur town and the finding of bona fide need recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority is against the weight of evidence more particularly the evidence of the landlady herself. Shri Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, particularly made reference to the statement made in para 8 of the application that the landlady had claimed the said accommodation for her own use and in evidence she has stated that the suit accommodation will be used by her through some of the relations who will undertake some business and provide for her during old age. On the other hand, Shri Manindra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the non-applicants, submitted that the pleadings of bona fide requirement have to be read in the back-ground in which the applicant has filed this application that is to say that she was initially resident of some village Changri and wants to shift to Bilaspur and stay and do some business. She had no other suitable accommodation and she requires the same bona fide. It is not an attempt to enhance the rent. I have considered the arguments of both the parties as also the evidence on the record. I have also gone through the findings recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority. The Authority has specifically pointed out that the landlady had no other accommodation in the town of Bilaspur. There was another house which was already in possession of the Agrawal Samaj and she does not have any other accommodation except the present one. The applicant-tenant did not enter witness box nor tendered any evidence as the defence was struck down for non-payment of the rent. During the revisional proceedings, it is stated that the applicant has made payment of the whole rent. So that as it may, the eviction is based on bona fide requirement. The said finding does not suffer from any irregularity. There is a specific finding that she does not own any other accommodation in the town of Bilaspur. During the revisional proceedings, it is stated that the applicant has made payment of the whole rent. So that as it may, the eviction is based on bona fide requirement. The said finding does not suffer from any irregularity. There is a specific finding that she does not own any other accommodation in the town of Bilaspur. Merely because in her statement she has stated that she will keep one of the relations who will do some business in the premises, it cannot be said that the requirement pleaded by the landlady was only for residential. In fact, the landlady required the accommodation for her own use both for residential and business. She is an old lady having no issues. It is all the more necessary that she must depend on someone. Her evidence in the cross-examination cannot be interpreted in a way to say that she does not require the accommodation for herself. The application was made in the year 1984 and till date she has not received the possession of the house. The findings recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. It is a finding of fact and I do not find any ground to disturb the same. The applicant shall vacate the premises within two months from the date of this order. Costs of this revision Rs. 100/-.