(1) THIS is rather an unfortunate case. Though the appellant-landlady came forward with an application under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 she could not succeed on that plea. The reason is; the courts have found that her entitlement is not activated by bona fides. However, pending the revision before the High court Section 14-D came to be introduced. That section reads as under: "RIGHT to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow.- (1 Where the landlord is a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband, are required by her for her own residence, she may apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises. (2 Where the landlord referred to in Ss. (1 has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to her to make an application under that Ss. in respect of any one of the premises chosen by her." (2) A review was filed before the High court praying that in view of this section the landlady being a widow would be entitled to succeed in the eviction application. The learned Judge of the High court was of the view that it was not open to him to take subsequent change in legislation. It is under these circumstances, the present Civil has come to be preferred. (3) THOUGH the initial part of the argument centred round on the bona fide need of the landlady but when we pointed out that on factual findings, it may not be possible for this court to interfere under Article 136, the arguments shifted to the ground resting on Section 14-D. Hence, the landlady prays that notwithstanding the petition has been filed under Section 14-D which is pending for adjudication before the Rent Controller, if on the facts the requirement of the section is satisfied, she would be entitled to eviction. The respondent argues: The prayer of the landlady is that once a factual finding has been rendered that there is no need for bona fide residence, that would operate against her. Even with regard to the claim under Section 14-D besides the landlady was demanding higher rent as is evident from her writing letters repeatedly for enhancement of rent. In any event, an application under Section 14-D is pending. That may be tried instead of this court dealing with this aspect. Even with regard to the claim under Section 14-D besides the landlady was demanding higher rent as is evident from her writing letters repeatedly for enhancement of rent. In any event, an application under Section 14-D is pending. That may be tried instead of this court dealing with this aspect. (4) ON a careful consideration of the above arguments, we are of the view that under Section 14-D, the tenant has practically no defence whatever. All that has to be proved under the said section which has been extracted above, are (I) that the landlady is a widow. (ii) the premises are required by her for her own residence. In this case, both these requirements are satisfied. As regards the first, we do not want to state the obvious. Regarding the second, the fact that she is living with her daughter or any other person, is no ground to say that the premises in question is not required for her residence. If this be so, we are unable to see as to how her demand for increased rent would militate against her plea. Having regard to this established fact, we think that the trial of the application under Section 14-D before the Rent Controller, will only be redundant. Therefore, we irect eviction of the respondent-tenant under Section 14-D. (5) THE tenant prays for time to hand over vacant possession. The learned counsel for the landlady, on instruction, submits that execution for recovery of possession will not be levied for six months provided the tenant gives an undertaking to hand over vacant possession at the end of six months period. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the landlady shall not levy execution for a 9 period of six months. The tenant will file an affidavit within four weeks agreeing to deliver vacant possession at the end of six months period without requiring the landlady to file execution petition. With these directions, the appeal is allowed. No costs.