Arun Kumar ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed the present eviction petition under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on he ground that she is a widow and the tenanted premises which is on the ground floor of the property no. 400, Double Story, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was required by her for her residence. At the time of institution of the eviction petition in November 1993. the age of the petitioner was stated to be seventy-six years. It was petitioners case that she was living alone on the first floor of the same property where the respondent is the tenant on the ground floor. Apart from her old age, the petitioner was stated to be suffering from various ailments which made it difficult for her to climb to the first floor. Secondly, it was pleaded that the petitioner had only one issue, i. e. , a married daughter who was residing with her husband at Rajkot. The husband of the petitioner s daughter is due to retire in December 1995. The petitioner s daughter is to join her at Delhi after the retirement other husband and look after the petitioner in her old age. Therefore, the accommodation was also required for purposes of the family of the daughter which consists of besides her husband two sons and grand children. The petitioner further pleaded that it was to safe for her to live alone at this old age. Till now, she has been managing through the help and assistance of a mail servant. However, now the daughter and her husband are to join her to look after her in her old age. Thus the eviction was sought on two grounds i. e. , first, for need for ground floor in view of the old age and other ailments of the petitioner and secondly, for the requirement of additional accommodation because the married daughter ofthe petitioner would be residing with her to look after her in her old age. ( 2 ) THE respondent tenant filed an affidavit praying for leave to contest the eviction petition. It was stated that the requirement ofthe petitioner for ground floor based on medical reasons was not genuine and secondly it was stated that the petitioner has no daughter no the requirement of married daughter for additional accommodation could be considered as requirement of the petitioner. It was stated that the requirement ofthe petitioner for ground floor based on medical reasons was not genuine and secondly it was stated that the petitioner has no daughter no the requirement of married daughter for additional accommodation could be considered as requirement of the petitioner. The Addl. Rent Controller vide the impugped order dated 18th April 1995 granted leave to contest on both the question, i. e. , the requirement of the petitioner to live on the ground floor as also the requirement of additional accommodatation to accommodate the married daughter so that she could look alter her mother in view of her old age and failing health. ( 3 ) TAKING the second point first, the learned Addl. Rent Controller has observed "there should not be dispute regarding legal proposition that need of married daughter cannot be pleaded by the mother as need other family member dependent on her". As a proposition of law, 1 do not think that the Addl. Rent Controller was correct in making the said observation. As a general proposition of law, it is settled that requirement of married daughters who come and stay with their parents can be considered while considering the need ofthe landlord for additional accommodation. Secondly, the facts ofthe present case show that it is not a case of bare plea that accommodation is required for the married daughter. The Addl. Rent Controller should have taken the peculiar facts ofthe case into consideration before making such an observation. ( 4 ) IN the facts of the case, the old mother requires her only daughter to stay with her in her old age and look after her. This makes it a special circumstance where old parents are seeking assistance of their children in their old age. In our society, we do not believe in discarding old parents and generally people take pride in looking after their old and aged parents. In such facts in a given case, the court may even take into consideration the requirement of a close friend whom the landlady may trust for staying with her and helping her in her old age. The present is a case of her own daughter willing to join her mother to look after her in her old age. Therefore, the Addl. The present is a case of her own daughter willing to join her mother to look after her in her old age. Therefore, the Addl. Rent Controller erred in holding that requirement of the family of the married daughter who would be staying with her mother to look after her in her old age could only be considered after taking evidence. ( 5 ) NOW, coming lot he question of requirement of the petitioner to stay on the ground floor on account of her old age and medial condition, I am of the view that the petitioner who is 78 years old which fact is to in dispute, is itself sufficient to show that she should stay on the ground floor. In addition to this the petitioner has placed certain medical evidence on record. One of the certificates from Maharaja Agarsain Hospital dated 12th May, 1994 shows that the petitioner suffered fracture of R femur-bone. Such a fracture at the age of 78 years practically renders the persons concerned dependent on others for all their requirements. Asking such a person to climb stairs to go to the first door accommodation shall be too much to say the least. Why should the landlady contiune to suffer the plain and agony of climbing up the first floor for the sake of a tenant ? ( 6 ) IN view of these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Addl. Rent Controller was in total error in granting leave to contest the eviction petition to the respondent in the present case. No triable issues have been raised by the tenant. The order dated 18th April, 1995 granting leave to contest to the respondent is set aside and the application of the tenant for permission to contest the eviction petition is dismissed. The result is that the averments in the eviction petition are deemed to be correct. An eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner qua the premises in suit, i. e. , the entire ground floor of property no. 400 Double Story, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi as per plan filed by the petitioner with the eviction petition. The respondent tenant is, however, granted two months time to vacate the premises, this petition as will as the eviction petition stand disposed of.