Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) THIS is tenant s revision against an order passed on 26. 4. 1994 by Shri A. S. Yadav, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowing the eviction petition preferred by landlady respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ordering petitioner s eviction from the premises. ( 2 ) PETITIONER s eviction was sought from residential premises, namely. 26-B, Pocket GG. 1, 1st Floor, Vikaspuri, New Delhi by the respondent landlady on the ground that she had given this flat on rent at the rate of Rs. 650. 00 p. m. on the basis of a written agreement dated 13. 1. 1984 though the tenant was paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 600. 00 p. m. The same was now, required by her bonafide for her own residence and for the residence of her family members. She had no other suitable residential accommodation available to her except a tenanted quarter No. 33. T. T. Place, Bangla Sahib Road, New Delhi, which had been allotted to her hy the Government. She wanted now to reside in the flat owned by her because she had to pay a sum of Rs. 600. 00 p. m. to the department and in addition she is also deprived of House Rent Allowance to which she would otherwise be entitled in case she would reside in her own properly. She also stated in the petition that her financial circumstances were not such to afford for such financial loss since she was obliged to pay Rs. 230/ p. m. , towards repayment of loan which she had taken from the department. According to her she had now found that facilities in the vicinity where her flat was located were more as compared to the place where the allotted quarter was located. It was stated that her family consisted of herself, her husband, a son and a daughter who were undergoing studies in 2nd and 6th standard respectively. She had also relations in Delhi from in laws side who used to keep on visiting her. Thus, she required the premises for her own use and occupation. ( 3 ) THE tenant sought leave which was granted and he resisted the petition for eviction by filing a reply. She had also relations in Delhi from in laws side who used to keep on visiting her. Thus, she required the premises for her own use and occupation. ( 3 ) THE tenant sought leave which was granted and he resisted the petition for eviction by filing a reply. The tenant did not dispute that the premises were owned by the respondent landlady and the same were let out for residence. The claim for personal use was contested on the ground that there was no change in the circumstances from the date when the premises were let out to the tenant. When premises were let out the landlady was residing with her family in the same quarter and rather it was more convenient for her to continue residing in the allotted quarter since it was quite near to the place of her posting. From the premises in question it would be more inconvenient to the respondent landlady to attend to her duties in the hospital. She was comfortably residing in the allotted quarter which was quite close to Connaught Place whereas the premises in question were located far away. Thus, according to the petitioner his eviction had been sought with malafide object of getting the rent enhanced. ( 4 ) PARTIES were taken to trial on the basis of the pleadings as made out in the eviction petition and the reply. Landlady examined AW 1 Darshan Lal Anand from Kalawati Saran Children Hospital. Bangla Sahib Marg, New Delhi who proved that a sum of Rs. 115. 00 was being deducted from the salary of the respondent as licence fee and in lieu of the allotted quarter she was not being paid H. R. A. amounting to Rs. 450/ p. m. Respondent had also taken house building loan for which Rs. 230. 00 was being deducted from her salary. There was absolutely no cross-examination of this witness by the petitioner. Respondent appeared herself as AW 2 and supported the grounds agitated by her in the eviction petition. It was stated that children presently were studying in Guru Har Krishan Public School. India Gate and this school had a branch at Fateh Nagar, which is near to the premises in question and after she shifts to the said premises her children would be getting education in the same school at Fateh Nagar branch. It was stated that children presently were studying in Guru Har Krishan Public School. India Gate and this school had a branch at Fateh Nagar, which is near to the premises in question and after she shifts to the said premises her children would be getting education in the same school at Fateh Nagar branch. She stated that her husband was doing the business of supplying desert coolers on rent. Shifting of residence by her would also be beneficial to him since his shop is located at Tilak Nagar quite near to the premises in question. She also explained in her statement the financial loss which she was incurring in continuing to occupy the premises allotted to her and in not occupying the premises owned by her. She stated that now she cannot afford to reside in allotted accommodation since she was incurring financial loss. She had to repay a sum of Rs. 230. 00 p. m. towards house building loan. In rebuttal to this evidence tenant petitioner appeared himself. The entire gist of his statement is that it would be more convenient for the landlady to continue to stay in the accommodation allotted to her than in the premises in question. The accommodation allotted to her was more spacious than the accommodation in question. ( 5 ) THE Controller on appreciation of evidence found that the landlady had made out a case for her requirement which was bonafide and ordered eviction. It is this order which is under challenge. ( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the entire record. ( 7 ) THERE is hardly am scope tor interference in the findings of fact recorded by the Controller which findings have been arrived at after due appreciation of evidence. It is not for the tenant to see as to which accommodation will be more convenient for the landlady. It is a case where landlady wants to shift to her own residential flat after surrendering the allotted accommodation. Plausable reasons have been assigned which cannot be said to be totally absurd. In case the landlady is suffering financial loss and wants to shift to accommodation owned by her, malafides cannot be imputed. It is a case where landlady wants to shift to her own residential flat after surrendering the allotted accommodation. Plausable reasons have been assigned which cannot be said to be totally absurd. In case the landlady is suffering financial loss and wants to shift to accommodation owned by her, malafides cannot be imputed. No material has heen brought on record by the tenant in support of his version that premises are sought to he got vacated with the sole purpose and object of getting the rent enhanced. The findings of fact are in consonance with the evidence on record. Thus, there being no force in the revision the same deserves dismissal and is hereby dismissed. ( 8 ) THE order of eviction was passed on 26. 4. 1994 and the same was not executable for a period of six months, which period has since expired. In the interest of justice, the tenant is granted additional time till 30. 4. 1995 to vacate the tenanted premises and put the landlady- respondent in peaceful and vacant possession, subject to the petitioner filing usual undertaking in this court on his affidavit within a period of one week from today with advance copy to the respondent through his counsel. On failure to file such an undertaking, the landlord respondent will he at liberty to execute the order of eviction forthwith.