Arun Kumar ( 1 ) THE petitioner claiming to be the owner/landlordof premises No. M-134, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, filed an eviction petitionagainst the respondents under clause (e) to Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitionwas filed on 14/05/1982. After a protracted trial it was dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller vide judgment dated 22. 1. 1990. The petitioner has challenged thesaid judgment of the Additional Rent Controller in the present proceedings. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the premises in suit was let out to therespondents by the mother of the petitioner in February 1969 in pursuance of anagreement of lease for II months entered into between the parties on 23/05/1971. Vide gift deed dated 29/03/1971 the property in suit was gifted by themother of the petitioner. The gift deed is a duly registered document. Theproperty has been mutated in the name of the petitioner in the records of themunicipal Corporation of Delhi. The respondents started paying rent to thepetitioner from 1971 in view of the said gift deed in favour of the petitioner. Thepetitioner claims to be the owner of the premises on the basis of the said gift deed. It is further stated by the petitioner that the premises. is located in a residential areaand was let out for residential purpose to the respondents since the very inceptionof the tenancy. Respondent No. 1 alongwith family members had been residingin the premises all along. The case of the petitioner is that the premises is requiredby the petitioner/landlady bona fide for occupation as a residence for herself, herhusband and two daughters. The husband and the minor daughters are dependenton the petitioner for purposes of residence. The petitioner has no other residentialaccommodation available to her in Delhi. The petitioner is a woman of status beingassessed to income-tax and wealth-tax. The petitioner is residing with her husbandand her two daughters in a small room as a temporary guest of her younger sisterin her house at M-144, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi. The said sister with herfamily is residing with her in-laws in the said joint family house. The petitionerfurther claimed that she has shifted to Delhi as her husband has started businessat New Delhi and the petitioner s daughters have started their education atdelhi. The said sister with herfamily is residing with her in-laws in the said joint family house. The petitionerfurther claimed that she has shifted to Delhi as her husband has started businessat New Delhi and the petitioner s daughters have started their education atdelhi. The petitioner also stated in the eviction petition that she was living in avery awkard position and the respondents were requested to vacate the premisesand respondent No. 1 promised to do so at the earliest. But the promises nevermaterialised. ( 3 ) IN the written statement the respondents denied all the averments ofthe petitioner including the averment that the petitioner was the owner/landladyof the suit premises and that the premises were let for residential purposes. According to the tenant the premises were let for residential-cum-commercialpurposes. The bona fide need of the petitioner for the suit premises was alsodenied. It was stated that the petitioner was living alone with her husbandpermanently at Lucknow. The petitioner s husband was stated to be carrying onbusiness at Lucknow under the name and style of Hind Shoe Company. He wasfiling income-tax returns of his business at Lucknow. The respondent deniedthat the petitioner s husband was having any business whatsoever at Delhi. Theaverment that the petitioner was residing at M-144, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhiasaguest of her younger sister was also denied. It was stated that the petitionerand her husband were having their names in the voters list and telephonedirectory at Lucknow which showed that they were residents of Lucknow. ltwasalso stated that the mother of the petitioner has a very big house at C-II, N. D. S. E. Part II, New Delhi where the petitioner stays whenever she comes to Delhi and,therefore, residence with the sister at M-144, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi wasonly a pretence to show scarcity of accommodation. The mother of the petitioneris all alone residing in the house at N. D. S. E. , Part-11, New Delhi. ( 4 ) THE normal requirements to be established by a petitioner in an evictionpetition underclause (e)ofthe proviso to Sub-section (l)ofsectionl4ofdelhirentcontrol Act are:- (I) petitioner is the owner of the premises in question; (ii) the premises was let to the tenant for residential purpose; (iii) premises is required bona fide by the petitioner for occupation as a residence for herself or for members of her family dependent uponher; and (iv) she has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodationavailable to her. ( 5 ) THE Addl. Rent Controller found in favour of the petitioner on the first tworequirements stated above. However, the petition was dimissed on the groundthat the petitioner had failed to establish her bonafide requirement for the suitpremises. In the present proceedings the learned Counsel for the respondentsconceded at the Bar that he was not challenging the findings of the Additional Rentcontroller on the question of ownership and purpose of letting of the suitpremises. Therefore, the matter before me is confined to the question of bona fiderequirement of the premises in suit of the petitioner. The fourth point regardingavailability of other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the petitioner is also not in issue in view of the admission of the tenant that the petitionerdoes not own any other property in Delhi. ( 6 ) ON the question of bona fide need of the petitioner having considered thefacts on record and rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties I amof the view that approach of the learned Additional Rent Controller in dealing with thematter was not correct. The learned Additional Rent Controller adopted a narrow andpedantic approach which led to the finding that the petitioner failed to establishher bona fide need for the suit premises for residence for herself and her familymembers dependent upon her for residence. ( 7 ) THE case of the petitioner as set up in the eviction petition is that thepetitioner requires the premises in suit bona fide for occupation as residence forherself and her husband and two daughters who are dependent on her forpurposes of residence being members of her family. The petitioner stated that shehas shifted to Delhi as her husband has started business at New Delhi, and thepetitioner s daughters have started their education at New Delhi. She was residingwith her husband and two daughters in a small room as a temporary guest of heryounger sister in her sister s house at New Delhi. The said sister was herself livingwith her in-laws in a joint family house and it was quite awkward for the petitionerto stay with her sister in these circumstances. The learned Additional Rent Controllermainly proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had failed to establish that thehusband had shifted his business to Delhi. Further she had admitted that herdaughters are studying at Lucknow. The learned Additional Rent Controllermainly proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had failed to establish that thehusband had shifted his business to Delhi. Further she had admitted that herdaughters are studying at Lucknow. Therefore, the plea that the husband hadshifted business to Delhi and daughters had started education were found to beunsubstantiated and false. It appeared improbable to the learned Additional Rentcontroller that the petitioner would continue to live as a guest of her sister for sucha long time without making her arrangement to live in proper accommodationinstead ofliving with the sister in small room as a temporary guest. Reliance wasplaced on some documents like voters list and telephone directory of Lucknowetc. to hold that the petitioner was still residing at Lucknow alongwith herhusband and, therefore, her case that she had shifted to Delhi was not believed. ( 8 ) THE learned Additional Controller failed to appreciate the distinctionbetween starting business at Delhi and shifting business to Delhi. Starting andshifting are different words having different meaning and connotation. Thelearned Additional Rent Controller considered the issue on the basis of shifting businessat Delhi which naturally required higher standard of proof. When an establishedbusiness is shifted, one may need office, telephone, staff etc. There may becorrespondence also at that address. The learned Additional Rent Controller appliedthese tests to find out the truthfulness of the plea of the petitioner landladyregarding her husband s business at Delhi. He goes on to say that that was the soleground for the petitioner to shift to Delhi. The petition was dismissed on thefinding that the landlady failed to show that her husband had shifted his businessto Delhi. Failure to appreciate the distinction between the shifting business andstarting business was the basic flaw in the approach of the Additional Rent Controller. The case of the landlady was that her husband had started business at Delhi. Whenthis is the case one need not establish its truthfulness by showing all that whichthe Additional Rent Controller felt that the landlady should have shown in the presentcase. ( 9 ) THE Additional Rent Controller ought to have approached the problem in apractical manner. First he had to address himself to the question what should alandlord in the situation in which the petitioner was placed do? Must thelandlord rent another accommodation before instituting the eviction petitionand continue to stay in rented accommodation for years till the final outcomeof the eviction petition. First he had to address himself to the question what should alandlord in the situation in which the petitioner was placed do? Must thelandlord rent another accommodation before instituting the eviction petitionand continue to stay in rented accommodation for years till the final outcomeof the eviction petition. Unmindful of the notorious fact about time consumedin the process of Court before such petitions are decided, the petitioner appearsto have shifted to Delhi. Whether the petitioner on shifting to Delhi stays withher mother or her sister does not make any difference so far as the legal positionin this behalf is concerned. Admittedly when the property in suit is the onlyproperty which the petitioner owns in Delhi she is entitled to stay in her own houserather than stay with her mother as a guest or with her sister as a guest. What isimportant is that the landlady wants to live in her own house in Delhi. It is neitherestablished from the evidence on record nor this has been disputed before me thatin Lucknow the petitioner was residing in a joint family in a premises which isrented by the joint family and not owned by it. Why a landlady who does not ownany property in Lucknow and owns only the property in suit in Delhi cannotchoose to reside in her own property alongwith her family? Desire to live in one sown house has been accepted as a good ground for purposes of Section 14 (1 ) (e)of the Delhi Rent Control Act. When that is so, a landlady living outside Delhi ina rented accommodation can also desire to live in Delhi in her own house. ( 10 ) THE petitioner s case that she has shifted to Delhi as her husband hasstarted business at Delhi and her daughters have started education at Delhi, hasto be considered primarily on the basis that the petitioner claims that she hasshifted to Delhi. Rest is only her reason for shifting to Delhi. In a given case thereason even if originally there may cease to exist. Still the factum of shifting todelhi may not disappear. Shifting to Delhi may still hold good even if the reasongiven for doing so may not survive or is disbelieved. To test this it has to beseen-could the petitioner not say that "i have shifted to Delhi and I require my propertyfor my residence and residence of my family", without more? Still the factum of shifting todelhi may not disappear. Shifting to Delhi may still hold good even if the reasongiven for doing so may not survive or is disbelieved. To test this it has to beseen-could the petitioner not say that "i have shifted to Delhi and I require my propertyfor my residence and residence of my family", without more? Nobody can insistthat she must live in Lucknow. The choice is of the landlady where ever she wantsto reside. In context of landlord s owning more than one properties in the same cityit has been judicially well recognised that the choice is left to the landlord to decidein which property he wants to reside. The issue has to be thus approached witha broad mind and not in a narrow technical manner. The enquiry, therefore, reallyhas to be whether the petitioner had shifted to Delhi. ( 11 ) ABOUT her shifting to Delhi apart from the statement of the petitioner asaw-1, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Ration card, photostatcopy is Ex. AW1/r-1. He has also relied on the correspondence between theparties preceding the filing of the eviction petition. Ex. AW1/r-1, photocopy ofthe Ration-card shows that the names of the petitioner, her husband and her twodaughters are shown alongwith the names of the sister of the petitioner and herfamily at M-134, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi address. The photocopyfurther shows that the ration card was renewed on 1. 1. 1983. A photocopy of theration-card issued earlier showing the same position has also been placed onrecord by the petitioner. This document was filed by the petitioner alongwith thelist of document dated 14/05/1982. Therefore,thismustbeofaperiodpriortothat. I have to say this because the date on this photocopy of Ration-card is notavailable. A Ration-card is an official document which is issued after dueverification. The respondents knew that the petitioner was relying on a Rationcard since its photocopy was filed by the petitioner on record on 14/05/1982. If the petitioner had any doubt about the same he could have taken steps bylodging a complaint to the department which would have necessitated freshverification and if the document was false necessary consequences would havefollowed. ( 12 ) THE correspondence preceding the institution of the present petition hasto be considered. I attach more weight to this correspondence because this isprior to litigation and also because the same is admitted by the parties. ( 12 ) THE correspondence preceding the institution of the present petition hasto be considered. I attach more weight to this correspondence because this isprior to litigation and also because the same is admitted by the parties. After theparties start litigation or they are in the hands of lawyers they may try to givelegalistic answers in order to anticipate certain consequences and to ward offthe same. The correspondence between the parties as laymen deserves greaterweightage. AW1/7dated 1. 12. 1981is the most material document. This is a noticeby the petitioner to the respondent in which the petitioner has categorically statedthat "it is becoming extremely difficult for me to stay as a guest with relations. Therefore, I request you to give possession of my house at an early date as itis embarrassing for me to stay with my sister and her in-laws family for such a longtime". This notice has been sent from M-144, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi, i. e. thesister s house. Tenant s reply tothisnoticeisex. AWI/18dated5. 12. 81. First therespondent denies the contents of the notice in general. Then he goes on to say"it is further wrong to suggest that you are staying as a guest with the relations. You have been fully inhabitated and reasonably suitable accommodation isavailable at your disposal. It is further wrong to suggest that there is anyembarrassment to you in staying with your sister and her in-laws as alleged. Fora number of years you are fully inhabited and all possible convenience ofresidence are available at your disposal". "thus the tenant does not deny theshifting of the petitioner to Delhi nor does he say in so many words that thepetitioner was not residing with her sister in Delhi. The respondent tenant couldhavestraightaway said that she was not living in Delhi and she was staying atlucknow and, therefore, her averment that she was staying with her sister in Newdelhi was false. In view of this documentary evidence coupled with the statementof the petitioner as her own witness it cannot be said that at the time of institutionof the eviction petition and in fact before the institution of the petition, thepetitioner had not shifted to Delhi. In view of this documentary evidence coupled with the statementof the petitioner as her own witness it cannot be said that at the time of institutionof the eviction petition and in fact before the institution of the petition, thepetitioner had not shifted to Delhi. ( 13 ) THE petitioner who appeared as AW-1 categorically stated that she doesnot own any other house in Delhi and that she requires the premises in dispute forher residence and residence of her family consisting of her husband and twodaughters who are dependent on her for purposes of residence. She further statedthat she was staying with her sister as a temporary guest. She has also shown thatit is not convenient for her to stay in the house of her mother because her motheris a religious lady and always there are Poojas and religious discourses in thesaid house, In cross examination the petitioner again categorically stated that herpresent address is M-144, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi. She adds that she wasresiding with her sister at M-144, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi at the time offiling of the eviction petition. In fact the next sentence in her statement is verysignificant where she says " I am shuttling between Delhi and Lucknow since then. There is no other address of residing in Delhi". About her husband she said he isbasically staying in Delhi since then though he is travelling a lot. Rest of the crossexamination was mainly directed to demonstrate that her husband had nobusiness at Delhi. ( 14 ) ON behalf of the respondent the effort is to show that the petitioner wasin fact residing at Lucknow. They have tried to show this from copy of voters list of Lucknow as also from entries in the Telephone Directory relating tolucknow. Entries in the voters list and in the Telephone Directory cannot bedeterminative of the fact about the petitioner s residence at Lucknow. There isno dispute that earlier the petitioner alongwith her husband was residing atlucknow in a joint family with the brother of the husband in a tenanted premises. They have a joint business in the name of Hind Shoe Company in Lucknow. Thetenant has not disputed and therefore it is an established fact on record that thehusband and the brother have set up anelectrical business in the name of Premierelectric Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Lucknow and factory in Sahadatganj, Lucknow. They have a joint business in the name of Hind Shoe Company in Lucknow. Thetenant has not disputed and therefore it is an established fact on record that thehusband and the brother have set up anelectrical business in the name of Premierelectric Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Lucknow and factory in Sahadatganj, Lucknow. It is a matter of common knowledge that the entries in thevoters list and Telephone Directory take years before they are corrected. Infactthe telephone department does not even bother about deleting the names of deadpersons for years. Apart from this the petitioner has denied that she or herhusband had any telephone in Lucknow in the name of either of them and shehas disputed those entries on the ground that the address in the entries isincorrect. Without going into this controversy I am of confirmed view that suchentries cannot be made a basis for a finding of residence of a person at aparticular place. There has to be something more. In the facts of the present caseit will be all the more reasonable to say that such entries cannot be relied upon. Asstated earlier it is admitted that petitioner was residing at Lucknow alongwith herhusband before shifting to Delhi. The petitioner has further stated that she keepson shuttling between Delhi and Lucknow. This is so because the petitioner has noproper accommodation to stay at Delhi and the premises in dispute is the onlyplace where she would like to permanently settle down. When the petitioner isshuttling between Lucknow and Delhi the continued appearance of entries qua herand her husband in the voters list at Lucknow and the Telephone Directory of thatcity are of no significance. ( 15 ) IT has been held by this Court in Aryan Dass v. Mahbub Rai,xxvi (1984)DLT (SN) 10, that Electoral Roll entries are very weak type of evidence. Quiteoften some of the voters are not registered though living in a particular house. Theomissions in the electoral roll of a particular member of family was, therefore,not sufficient to disbelieve the landlord. Likewise converse will also be true. Existence of entries in electoral roll by itself cannot be made the basis of a findingof residence of a person at a particular place. Deletion and addition of names inelectoral rolls take their own time. Very often people do not bother about this. Likewise converse will also be true. Existence of entries in electoral roll by itself cannot be made the basis of a findingof residence of a person at a particular place. Deletion and addition of names inelectoral rolls take their own time. Very often people do not bother about this. ( 16 ) IN fact it appears that the daughters of the petitioner who were very youngat the time when the petitioner shifted to Delhi had to return to Lucknow for theirformal education because of lack of proper residential accommodation at Delhi. When the daughters of the petitioner came to Delhi alongwith their mother theywere very young being 1 and 5 years old, therefore, any formal schooling was notas such required. If the petitioner had a regular place for residence of her family,she would have preferred to start the formal education of her daughters at Delhi. Since she was not getting the accommodation what could she do? While staying asa guest of somebody cramped in one room she could not afford to keep herdaughters in Delhi when they reached the stage of starting their formal education. It appears that the daughters had to ultimately return to Lucknow to continuetheir formal education and that is why the petitioner has to shuttle betweendelhi and Lucknow. She could not wait indefinitely for proper residence atdelhi and allow the education of her daughters to suffer. The petitioner has saidthat her daughters also keep on coming to Delhi on holidays otherwise they arestaying with their aunt and uncle at Lucknow since they are studying at Lucknow. Without appreciating this problem the learned Additional Rent Controller has drawnan adverse inference from the admission of the petitioner that her daughters werestudying in Lucknow. What else the petitioner could do about the educationof her daughters in the facts and circumstances of the case when she is unableto get proper accommodation for stay in Delhi. She had to send her daughtersback to Lucknow in the interests of their education. ( 17 ) THE husb and of the petitioner is also admittedly having his joint businesswith his brother at Lucknow. His brother is settled at Lucknow where thehusband of the petitioner was also settled. They had their family business of Hindshoe Company. They started a new business under the name of Premier Electronicpvt. Ltd. meaning thereby they are expanding their horizons. His brother is settled at Lucknow where thehusband of the petitioner was also settled. They had their family business of Hindshoe Company. They started a new business under the name of Premier Electronicpvt. Ltd. meaning thereby they are expanding their horizons. In the process ofexpansion of their business the husband started exploring the Delhi market. Thisis what the petitioner means when she says that her husband has started businessin Delhi. By this she does not mean that he has set up any factory or office in Delhi. As per the suggestions thrown to RW-1, i. e. , respondent No. 1 in crossexamination the husband of the petitioner is apparently doing liaison work for hisfactory at Lucknow. The other brother may be looking after the factory while thehusband of the petitioner is looking after the interest of the said business at Delhiin the shape of finding customers for its products and pruchasing raw materialfor manufacturing the articles. The business at Delhi by the husband does notmean that it has to be a very extensive and broad based business. It must berecalled that the case of the petitioner is that husband has started business atdelhi. Admittedly the husband of the petitioner is the Managing Director ofm/s. Premier Electronic Pvt. Ltd. At this stage of the business having a regularoffice at Delhi is not a must. The husband makes purchases of raw material atdelhi and he is contacting partics for purposes of sales of the products of thefactory for which he must be required to make personal visits to the parties. Having an office at Delhi or correspondence at Delhi is not a must. The petitionerhas placed on record bank certificate showing that the business has a bankaccount in Delhi. Having a bank account may be enough for the purpose ofconducting the type of business mentioned above. Ultimately depending on thenature and extent of business the petitioner s husband may have to decide whetherto have a regular office in Delhi. The decision has to be his. But converse does notfollow. Without. having office in Delhi it cannot be said that he cannot havebusiness in Delhi or that if he has no office in Delhi that means that he has nobusiness in Delhi. The decision has to be his. But converse does notfollow. Without. having office in Delhi it cannot be said that he cannot havebusiness in Delhi or that if he has no office in Delhi that means that he has nobusiness in Delhi. In this process of reasoning the argument that the retums of thebusinessare filed in Lucknow as also the statutory returns required to be filedwith the office of Registrar of Companies are filed at Kanpur does not cut any ice. If the registered office of the company is at Lucknow the statutory returns havegot to be filed with the Registrar of Companies of the area. Similarly the factoryis at Lucknow. Registered office is at Lucknow. Assessments for income-tax andsales-tax, if any, have to be at Lucknow. ( 18 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to show from thestatutory returns of M/s. Premier Electronics Pvt. Ltd. filed with the Registrar ofcompanies that the residential address of the husband of the petitioner is shownin those returns as that of Lucknow. To my mind nothing turns on this for thereason that the returns are normally filed by the Chartered Accountants who keepon repeating the information on such points as are under reference in this case onthe basis of previous years returns. Secondly, this point is immaterial for thereason that it is apparent from the record that the petitioner or her husband havenot totally effaced themselves from Lucknow. ( 19 ) THE petitioner has not sought the possession of the premises for purposesof business of her husband. She has sought the possession for purposes for herresidence and the residence of her family. Therefore, the question of business ofher husband is secondary. The primary question is about the residence of thepetitioner in Delhi. ( 20 ). This also knocks off the argument of the Counsel for the respondentregarding non-production of the husband of. the petitioner in. the witness boxand adverse inference to be drawn from that fact. Firstly it was not a must that ifthe petitioner should shift to Delhi her husband must have business. at Delhi. Secondly, the statement of the petitioner that her husband has started business atdelhi cannot besaid to be falsemerely because no business address or no evidenceof business activity could be produced. Firstly it was not a must that ifthe petitioner should shift to Delhi her husband must have business. at Delhi. Secondly, the statement of the petitioner that her husband has started business atdelhi cannot besaid to be falsemerely because no business address or no evidenceof business activity could be produced. In the nature of the business of the husbandreferred to hereinbefore these things were not a sine qua non and, therefore, thisargument cannot be taken to non-suit the petitioner. ( 21 ) THE conclusion of the learned Additional Rent Controller for dismissing theeviction petition is mainly based on his finding that the petitioner failed to provethat her husband had shifted his business to Delhi.-As already observed this wasnot a correct approach. The case of the petitioner is that her husband has startedbusiness to Delhi. Looking at it from another angle if the husband of the petitionerhad not started his business at Delhi, could the petitioner not decide to stay indelhi in her own house? The petitioner herself stated that before shifting to Delhiher family was settled at Lucknow. Thereafter the petitioner has shifted todelhi but till she is able to get proper accommodation for her stay in Delhi shehas to shuttle between Lucknow and Delhi. Therefore, it is because of nonavailability of proper residential accommodation in Delhi that the petitioner hasbeen subjected to the plight of shuttling between Delhi and Lucknow. For thesame reason the petitioner had to send back her daughters for education atlucknow and she could not fulfil her wish to start the formal education of herdaughters in Delhi in the absence of proper residential accommodation. Thepetitioner has suffered in various ways. ( 22 ) THE respondent appearing as RW-2 has after admitting that the husbandof the petitioner is the Managing Director of Premier Electronics Pvt. Ltd. , deniedall the suggestions about the business of the petitioner at Delhi on account oflack of. knowledge. Suggestions were put to him that the said firm Premierelectronics Pvt. Ltd. was supplying its product to Cement Corporation of India,delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, Delhi College of Engg. Corn. Research Instituteof Delhi, I. I. T. , Delhi etc. He denied the same on ground of absence ofknowledge. Similarly he denied the suggestion on ground of lack of knowledgethat the husband of the petitioner looks after the Delhi business of the said firm. Corn. Research Instituteof Delhi, I. I. T. , Delhi etc. He denied the same on ground of absence ofknowledge. Similarly he denied the suggestion on ground of lack of knowledgethat the husband of the petitioner looks after the Delhi business of the said firm. He also denied the suggestions on the same ground to the effect that the companymakes its purchases in Delhi and also sells its goods in Delhi. It was suggestedto him that it is for purposes of the said business that the husband. of the petitionerlives in Delhi which was of course denied by him. ( 23 ) THE point regarding failure to prove the business of the husband of thepetitioner at Delhi can be examined from another angle. The petitioner says in theeviction petition that she has shifted to Delhi as her husband has started hisbusiness at New Delhi. Suppose the husband who started the business at Delhicould not establish himself in Delhi or did not find it viable to continue business indelhi thereby stopping the business at Delhi altogether. Will it still be said that for this reason alone it should be found that petitioner had not shifted to Delhi. Whatabout her actual shifting to Delhi? If there is no business of her husband at Delhican she still not chose to live in Delhi in her own house? The answer has to be inthe affirmative. ( 24 ) IT is judiciously well recognised that the landlord is the best Judge abouthis requirements for residence for himself and his family and as to where he wantsto reside. If a landlord is resident off a city other than the city in which thepremises regarding which eviction is sought is situated, he can chose the city wherehe wants to reside. Likewise if he has more than one properties in the city it isultimately his choice as to which property he wants to occupy for his and hisfamily s residence. ( 25 ) IN Hi-Bred (India) (P) Ltd. v. Ravi K. and Am. , 1989 (2) RCR 668 it wasobserved that after all it was for the landlords tomake up their minds as to wherethey would like to live. The landlords in the said case were Green Card holdersfrom the United State. The Immigration Authorities as per the United Statesimmigration Laws entitle them to permanently stay in the United States. , 1989 (2) RCR 668 it wasobserved that after all it was for the landlords tomake up their minds as to wherethey would like to live. The landlords in the said case were Green Card holdersfrom the United State. The Immigration Authorities as per the United Statesimmigration Laws entitle them to permanently stay in the United States. Thelandlord s case was that they want to reside in their own house which was underthe tenancy of the petitioner company. Eviction petition was allowed by theaddl. Rent Controller. This Court dismissed the revision petition of the tenantholding that inspite of the fact that the landlords were Green Cardholders therewas nothing wrong in their desire to settle in their house in Delhi. The requirementof the landlord to stay in their house in Delhi was held to be bonafide. ( 26 ) IN Usha Sales Ltd. v. Mohini Nayyer, XXVII (1985) DLT 417 this Courtagain upheld the desire of a landlady to reside in her own house in Delhi after herretirement as a teacher in United Kingdom. The landlady filed the evictionpetition in the year 1980 when she was due to retire in 1982. It was also stated onbehalf of the tenant that the petition was premature. This objection of the tenantwas also turned down with the observation that it is not necessary that afterretirement she must come to Delhi and start staying in rented accommodation orat the mercy of relations. In the case in hand in fact the petitioner started residingin Delhi at the mercy of her relations. Still the requirement of the landlady washeld to be not bona fide. The ratio of this judgment is also a complete answer tothe argument on behalf of the respondent tenant that the daughters of thepetitioner are staying at Lucknow. The ration card entries show that the daughters had also come to Delhi when the petitioner shifted to Delhi so as to start theireducation in Delhi. Undoubtedly as compared to Lucknow the educationfacilities in Delhi are better and landlord s desire that her daughters should geteducation at Delhi cannot be said to be mala fide. Parents wish that their childrenshould get best education. Further in this connection it is to be noted that if apetitioner gives more than one reason for shifting to Delhi and one of those reasonsis found to be unsubstantiated or false, it does not mean that the entire case mustfall. Parents wish that their childrenshould get best education. Further in this connection it is to be noted that if apetitioner gives more than one reason for shifting to Delhi and one of those reasonsis found to be unsubstantiated or false, it does not mean that the entire case mustfall. In his anxiety to get the relief apetitioner may overstate him/her case. Ifthe case is disbelieved on one aspect it does not mean that it should failaltogether. (S. Kapur v. 0m Prakash Sharma (1980) 17 DLT 256 ). ( 27 ) STARTING business at Delhi cannot be taken to mean that the entire businesshas to shift to Delhi which may require proper business office, telephone, staff etc. For starting a business it need not even have an office in Delhi. These things comealongwith the progress of the business and disappear if the business does notthrive. Furtherthese things have to beconsidered in the background of the natureof the business. As already seen for sales and purchases and that too in thebeginning, a proper office, telephone, staff etc. were not essential ( 28 ) TO meet the arguments of the respondent that adverse inference shouldbe drawn from the fact of non-production of the husband of the petitioner in thewitness box, the petitioner has filed an application in these proceedings underorder 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code (C. M. No. 2303/94) for permission to produce herhusband as a witness. The view I have taken on this aspect of the case does notleave any scope for the argument regarding adverse inference to be drawn onaccount of non-production of husband as a witness. For the same reason I do notconsider it necessary to go into the controversy as to whether application underorder41,rule27, Civil Procedure Code should be allowed or not. The application is not necessaryand is disposed of as such. ( 29 ) THE case of the respondent was also that the eviction petition was malafide because the petitioner wants to enhances rent since rents in the locality havegone up. Except his word of mouth there is nothing on record in support of thisplea whcih is usually taken by all the tenants. The falsity of the plea is demonstrated from the fact that correspondence between parties preceded filing of theeviction petition. The correspondence nowhere shows any attempt for increase ofrent on the part of the petitioner. The rent has remained the same throughout. The falsity of the plea is demonstrated from the fact that correspondence between parties preceded filing of theeviction petition. The correspondence nowhere shows any attempt for increase ofrent on the part of the petitioner. The rent has remained the same throughout. ( 30 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that thepetitioner was setting up a false case in order to throw out the tenant and getpossession of the premises in suit. To alley any apprehension on the part of thetenant against the landlady in this behalf reference to Section 19 of the Delhi Rentcontrol Act is enough. The said provision takes care of such mala fide attemptson the part of owners/landlords. Therefore, law has not left the matter to thechoice of the owner/landlord nor the tenant has been left at the mercy of theowner/landlord in such matters. ( 31 ) THE conclusion of the learned Additional Rent Controller that the sole groundfor the bona fide need of the petitioner for the premises in dispute is the shiftingof business by her husband at Delhi is totally incorrect. This is the result of thewrong approach to the problem. Shifting of business to Delhi is not the landlady scase. The case of the petitioner is that she had shifted to Delhi and she requires thepremises in suit for her residence and the residence of her family membersdependent upon her for that purpose. Her husband has started business at Delhi. The result of the above discussion is that the requirement of the petitioner to residein the premises in suit alongwith members of her family cannot be doubted nor canit be said that it is not bona fide. The petition is allowed. An order of evictionis passed against the respondents and they are directed to hand oyer vacantpossession of the entire tenancy premises being No. M-134, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi, to the petitioner. The respondents are allowed six months timein view of provisions of Section 14 (7) of the Act. No costs.