JUDGMENT P. K. Palli, J —The petitioner who .is -the tenant under respondent/ landlord, has laid challenge to the order passed by the learned Real Controller ordering his ejectment from the premises in question which order, on his appeal, stands affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. The parties, hereinafter in the judgment, shall be referred to as landlord and tenant. 2. The ejectment of the tenant was sought by the landlord under the provisions of section 14 (3) (d) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 which reads as under : •14. (1) (2) (3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession— (a) (b) (c) (d) in the case of any residential building, if he requires it for use as an office, or consulting room by his son who intends to start practice as a lawyer, an architect, a dentist, an engineer, a veterinary surgeon or a medical practitioner, including a practitioner of Ayurvedic, Unani or Homoeopathic System of Medicine or for the residence of his son who is married, if— (i) his son as aforesaid is not occupying in the urban area concerned any other building for use as office, consulting room or residence, as the case may be ; and (ii) his son as aforesaid has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause, after the commencement of this Act, in the urban area concerned." 3. It was pleaded in para 18 (a) of the ejectment petition that the landlord is at present residing in a tenanted premises at Butail Ganj, Shimla whereas his elder son is residing in Mehlog House, Boileauganj who is married and his family consists of himself, his wife, daughter aged about 19 years, elder son aged about 17 years, second son aged about 15 years (all the three children studying at the relevant time). It was also stated that the relations of the son of the landlord also visit and the premises in his occupation consists of two residential rooms besides a drawing room, a dining room bath room and toilet. The requirement of the said son is five residential rooms apart from drawing and dining rooms. It was also stated that the relations of the son of the landlord also visit and the premises in his occupation consists of two residential rooms besides a drawing room, a dining room bath room and toilet. The requirement of the said son is five residential rooms apart from drawing and dining rooms. The accommodation with him was stated to be insufficient and the landlord desired to provide additional accommodation to that son and the premises for which the ejectment was being sought, i.e., the one in possession of the tenant, adjoins the accommodation already in occupation of the said son. It was also pleaded that the married son of the landlord R. K Aggarwal has no property of his own within the urban area of Shimla nor he occupies any other accommodation except the one stated in the petition nor he has vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. The children of the said son were growing up and needed separate accommodation for their living and study. The premises in question were thus, sought to be vacated for providing additional accommodation to the married son. 4. In reply, the averments made in the petition were denied by the tenant It was submitted that the tenant is occupying a set of two room, a Small Verandah and a latrine The provision of kitchen and bath is in one of these two rooms In a way, it was pleaded that the tenant is occupying only one living room and the other room is meant for kitchen and bath. It was alleged that the petition has been filed to force the tenant to pay enhanced rent There are other tenants living in the house The landlord is having four room accommodation in his occupation in the basement and the petition is mala fide It was admitted that the son of the landlord R K Aggarwal is living witch his wife and two sons and that accommodation is more than sufficient and the landlord does not require any more accommodation as claimed by him for his son It was also pleaded that the premises in occupation of other tenants, i.e. Ravinder Thakur and Urmila Kapoor is also contiguous to the other accommodotion being occupated by the landlord and his sons but no petition has been filed against them which would mean that no additional accommodation is required. It was also said that the son is not dependent in the matter of accommodation upon his father 5. The landlord filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the tenant and it was stated that the tenant cannot dictate his terms to the choice of the landlord as to which accommodation he requires for his occupation The landlord is living in rented accommodation at Butail Ganj and he has filed an ejectment petition against other tenant seeking his eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. The two sons of the landlord are said to be residing in the buildind known as Mehlog House and the premises in question are located in that very building and the accommodation in occupation of the tenant is the most suitable accommodation which can be provided to the married son of the landlord. It was specifically denied that the other accommodation is more suitable. 6. On appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, the learned Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the tenant holding that the premises in question were required bona fide by the landlord for the needs of his married son It was found that the son of the landlord R. K.. Aggarwal was presently in occupation of only two bed rooms and that too on the first floor and the other two rooms which are being used as drawing and dining rooms, are situated on the ground floor of the said building. On analysis it was found that the minimum requirement of the son of the landlord was at least four bed rooms It was also found that the landlord is not having any other building at Shimla either in his own name or in the name of his son and a case for the entitlement of additional accommodation stands made out. 7. On appreciation of evidence it was found that there are two rooms lying vacant in the basement which are in occupation of the landlord whereas the other two rooms are with the tenant The plea raised by the tenant that the landlord was in possession of four rooms which are vacant, was found to be false. The two rooms lying in the basement could not be utilised by the landlord or by his son as additional accommodation as these were not suitable 8. The two rooms lying in the basement could not be utilised by the landlord or by his son as additional accommodation as these were not suitable 8. The findings returned by the Rent Controller were upheld by the learned Appellate Authority in appeal with the observations that the accommodation was genuinely required by the landlord to accommodate and adjust the family of the married son and the need was bonafide. 9. When this revision petition was taken up for hearing on November 21, 1996, the same was adjourned to November 26, 1996 at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties. When the case came up on November 26, 1996, learned Counsel for the tenant prayed that she desired to move some application to bring on record subsequent events, She was permitted to do so and the case was consequently adjourned to December 3, 1996 Efforts were also made to find out an amicable solution but the talks failed, In the application to bring on record subsequent events it has been stated by the tenant that one tenant Gian Sagar vacated a suite of two rooms on the ground floor and that portion was being occupied by the son (R K Aggarwal) of the landlord. 10. A suite of two rooms consisting of small POOJA room, open Verandah, kitchen, bath room and latrine existing on the ground floor has been vacated by another tenant M. K Joshi about six months ago and this accommodation is also being used by R. K. Aggarwal. It was further stated that Urmil Sharma who was a tenant on the first floor, has vacated a two room suite on September 25, 1996 and the premises vacated by her are contiguous to the accommodation in occupation of R K Aggarwal and the suite is more airy and spacious and would meet the requirement of the landlord for the purposes of providing additional accommodation to the married son and, therefore, these events have a material bearing on the case dis-entitling the landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant 11 In reply, the landlord has submitted that the portion vacated by Gian Sagar has not been made available to R K Aggarwal, In fact the same was got vacated by the landlord for the requirement of another married son Narinder Kumar and the same was in his possession. In respect of the premises vacated by M K. Joshi on July 8, 1996. it has been said that the premises have been left in a bad shape and could not be put to use immediately The same are under extensive sepairs and would be occupied by the landlord. It was denied that R K Aggarwal is using these premises 12 In respect of the premises vacated by Urmil Sharma, it is said that the same is also in bad shape as it was in occupation of the tenant even prior to the purchase by the landlord. The premises are under extensive repairs and renovations The existing wall has been closed and the petitioner Vail has been removed which was separating the toilet. The premises are not in occupation of R, K. Aggarwal as there lies a passage in between the two premises It was denied that these premises are more spacious. 13. The landlord has further said in reply that he is 78 years old and on account of old age, he spends winter season at Panckula. Such a plea was also raised by M. K. Joshi and was rejected in separate proceedings right upto this Court, It is stated that as the premises are under repairs, the landlord would himself shift and occupy for his own use. At present he was living with his other son as he and his wife require constent medical care. He and the other son would immediately shift to the premises after repairs and renovations. In para 7 of the reply, it has been stated that the need of elder son R K Aggarwal has increased as the two sons have grown up and are aged 25 and 27 years and are unmarried. The are likely to be married in the near future and more premises would be required for their use One son was temporarily away for the purposes of his study and immediately on completion of studies, he is likely to come back 14. About the married daughter it has been said that there has been some matrimonial dispute with her husband and she is now residing with her parents, ie. with the son of the landlord-R. K. Aggarwal-for the last about two-and-a-half years and keeping in view the changed circumstances, additional accommodation isimmediaiely required. About the married daughter it has been said that there has been some matrimonial dispute with her husband and she is now residing with her parents, ie. with the son of the landlord-R. K. Aggarwal-for the last about two-and-a-half years and keeping in view the changed circumstances, additional accommodation isimmediaiely required. As the petition was filed in the year 1987 and a period of ten years has elapsed, the requirement has also increased by t lapse of time Reference has been pointedly made to the statement made by the tenant (Annexur^ R-2) made in other proceedings where the tenant had himself conceded that the son of the landlord, namely, R K. Aggarwal requires minimum seven rooms for his accommodation. In the end, it was submitted that the subsequent events in no way affect the requirement of the landlord. 15. Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant, strongly contends that if the subsequent events which have been brought by her on the records of the case are looked into, no order of ejectment can be passed against the tenant and this Court has to be satisfied that the need of the landlord exists till the date the order of ejectment is passed In further support of the argument, reliance is placed on 1995 (!) RCR 5 8, Baba Kashinath Bhinge v. Samast Lingayat Gavali and 1985 (I) SCC 251 ; Variety Emporium v V. R. M. Ibrahim Naina. 16. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord, in reply, contends that there was no change dis-entitling the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant and the accommodation which has been vacated was either needed for providing accommodation to the other married son and his family and for the personal bona fide requirement of the landlord himself. Mr Gupta contends that the tenant cannot be permitted to dictate terms to the landlord as to which accommodation should be occupied by him or by his son. The same being the sole prerogative of the landlord, the choice has to be left to him only. 17. There can be no dispute with the case law that in a case of bona fide requirement, it is necessary that till the decree of eviction is passed, the landlord should satisfy that the need is bona fide and continues to subsist. 17. There can be no dispute with the case law that in a case of bona fide requirement, it is necessary that till the decree of eviction is passed, the landlord should satisfy that the need is bona fide and continues to subsist. If at the time of granting the final order such material is brought on record which would dis entitle the landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant, the same shall certainly be taken into account, but the Court has to be very cautious while looking into these changed situations or attending circumstances 18. In a given situation and in appropriate cases the Courts have to bear in mind the relief and the same would be moulded on the date the ejectment is to be ordered in case such events have taken place during the continuance of proceedings which destroyed the very foundation or claim as put fourth by the landlord or the facts which were existing at the time when the petition was initially filed, have dis-appeared. There can be no two opinions that the requirement of the landlord should continue to exist till the date the tenant is finally ordered to be evicted and thrown on the read The events and developments or such acts and conduct of the landlord which may dis entitle him from seeking ejectment, would certainly be taken cognizance of But unfortunately, even if these events, as brought on record by the tenant, are looked info, do not, in my considered opinion, save the tenant from his eviction. 19. The tenant in the present case is not the Judge of the requirement of the landlord or of his son for which the landlord alone is the Judge. It is for the landlord to see which accommodation is needed for himself and his family, for the married son and the family and in case there are more than one married son, which part of the premises have to be allotted to whom keeping in view the size of the family and the living style. The landlord has succeeded in securing ejectment of tenants from this building of which the tenanted premises forms part. The premises got vacated from other tenants are under extensive repairs and renovations and the landlord desires and intends to shift in those premises after completion of repairs and renovations. The landlord has succeeded in securing ejectment of tenants from this building of which the tenanted premises forms part. The premises got vacated from other tenants are under extensive repairs and renovations and the landlord desires and intends to shift in those premises after completion of repairs and renovations. Some portion has been got vacated by the landlord to accommodate the other married son with whom he is presently living in a rented premises and in the reply it has been stated that his other son and he himself would shift to these premises together on the completion of repairs. 20.. It is not a case where the married son has filed this petition in his own independent right In the given situation, he is totally dependent on his father for the purposes of accommodation. He may be having his independent source of income or business and that would not dis-entitle the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant as the son may or may not have the means to secure for himself a separate and independent living away from his father It may be added here at this stage that the landlord has stated that the business being carried out by him and his son is joint Be that as it may. The fact remains that the married son for whose benefit the petition has been filed, is already in occupation of some accommodation in the premises and it is a case of providing additional accommodation in order to meet the existing needs in view of the status of the family. All the three children of R K. Aggarwal, the married son of the landlord, have grown up. They were in the age group of 15, and 17 years when the petition was initially filed. The daughter stands married but has returned to her parental house because of some matrimonial problems and is residing with them for the last more than two-and-a-half years as said in the reply. 21. Daughters after marriage in our society do not severe their connections with the parental home. They keep on visiting their parents very often and some times with their husbands and children. Some accommodation is always needed for their comfortable stay. 22. Another fact which cannot be lost sight of is that the two sons of R. K. Aggarwal are now 25 years and 27 years respectively. They keep on visiting their parents very often and some times with their husbands and children. Some accommodation is always needed for their comfortable stay. 22. Another fact which cannot be lost sight of is that the two sons of R. K. Aggarwal are now 25 years and 27 years respectively. They have almost completed their studies and are likely to be married in near future and their future needs have also to be kept in view, 23. As 1 look at the things, a case of subsequent events has to be looked into from the point of view of the landlord also. Even when some portions in the building have fallen vacant it is completely the option of the landlord to choose and decide as to which particular portion, site, floor or accommodation is needed to suite his needs or other members of the family including the needs of the married son and his family. Option is again given to the landlord to make a choice as to against which tenant, in case there are many, he desires to file ejectment proceedings in order to meet his requirement and the tenant cannot, in any situation, be permitted to thrust upon the landlord his own choice nor the Court, in the given situation, would exercise any advisory jurisdiction in telling the landlord to accept the one which the Court may offer or the one which is suggested by the tenant. 24. The Courts, on a proper case made out, shall certainly look into the purpose projected by the landlord whether the same is bona fide and is not designed or motivated or prompted by some hidden deal and the relief could always be moulded, if the Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the subsequent events established on record would dis-entitle the landlord from an order of ejectment against the tenant. The language of the statute is plain and simple. To only two impediments are that the son is not occupying in the urban area concerned any other building for residence and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause, after the commencement of the Act, in the urban area concerned. 25. The tenant has not been able to make out any case whatsoever that the changed circumstances are sufficient enought to dismiss the petition filed by the landlord seeking his eviction 26. 25. The tenant has not been able to make out any case whatsoever that the changed circumstances are sufficient enought to dismiss the petition filed by the landlord seeking his eviction 26. Miss Devyani Kuthiala has also argued that the definition of family’ and dependents dis-entitles the married son to come within the definition of family and there was neither joint mess nor they were living together and that they are separate in business also. I am not prepared to accept this argument as it runs counter to the provisions under which the ejectment of the tenant is being sought. The Courts of law have to keep in mind the language and the words used in the statute and they are not required to import their own knowledge or to extend the meaning of the phraseology used therein. According to the provision, a landlord would apply to the Controller for order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession in case of any residential building, if he requires it for the residence of his son who is married. No such test is prescribed by the statute as is sought to be projected by Ms. Devyani Kuthiala. 27. It is also argued that the element of bona fide has to be proved and it is not merely the wish of the landlord which is to be the sole criteria The argument proceeds on the basis that the requirement of the landlord stands fulfilled after the vacation of other accommodation by the tenants. In further support of the contention, reliance is being on 1992(2) RCR 275, Lalchand Choithram Sindhi v Laxman Das Narain Das Sindhi; 1984 (2) RLR 155, Kasturi Lal Sharma v. Kartar Singh ; 1988 (2) RCR 559, Hameedia Hardware Stores v. D Mohan Lal Sowear ; 1993 (1) RCR 113, Capt. (Retd) Ravi Gupta v. Smt Vidya Wati; 1990 (2) RCR 39, Ramesh v. A. Balreddy ; and 1991 (2) RCR 650, M. P. Rawla v S. D Tyagi 28. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord, painfully contends that the needs of landlord stand enlarged and the children of his son have grown up and equities are to be adjudged. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord, painfully contends that the needs of landlord stand enlarged and the children of his son have grown up and equities are to be adjudged. In further support of his contention, reliance is strongly placed on 1978(1) RLR 453, Bhagwan Dass v. Partap Singh and others ; 1984 (2) RLR 524, Kasturi Lai Sharma v. Kartar Singh ; (986 (1) RLR 456, Sewa Ram Sethi and another v. Des kaj ; 19K3 (1) RCJ 18, SA/7 Natha Singh v Shri H.V. Nayar ; 1987 (2) RCJ 179, K.D). A7KW«a v. Z). K. Purl; 1994 (1) RCR 14^, Kamladebi Mukherjee v. Arun Das Gupta ; 1985 (1) RCJ 531, Devinder Singh Puri v Mohan Lai Mehta ; 1982(2) RCR 681, Rajinder Kumar v. Dr. Rajwant Rai Sood. 29. I have glance through this case law. This judgment need not be burdened further by a reproduction of the observations made therein as there cannot be two different opinions in respect of tests laid down therein. 30. The tenant, admittedly, has been occupying the premises in dispute for the last more than twenty-twenty-two years. No petition was filed by the landlord seeking his ejectment during this long span which by itself would show there is no mala fide intention on the part of the landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant. It has also come on record that the landlord himself is living in a rented accommodation with his other son in Butail Ganj and ejectment petitions were filed by him requiring the accommodation for himself as well as for providing accommodation to the other married sons Since the elder son of the landlord, i e. R. K. Aggarwal is already occupying some portion in the main building and the accommodation in possession of the tenant is contiguous, no motives can be attributed that the ejectment is being sought on wholly irrelevant considerations. 31. The Courts of law have to keep in mind the social status, economic standard and the desire coupled with the need to make oneself more comfortable in his own premises and this test is to be applied from the view point of landlord and his family members. The Courts is not expected to substitute its own ideas and the decision is to be left to the landlord himself. The Courts is not expected to substitute its own ideas and the decision is to be left to the landlord himself. It may not be out of place to state here that the landlord in the present case has offered an alternative accommodation to the tenant in the basement of the building but the offer stands declined by the tenant on the ground that it is neither suitable nor sufficient. Sufficiency or suitability of the tenant is not the headache of the landlord When the tenant has refused to accept this offer made by the landlord on the ground that the accommodation being offered is neither suitable nor sufficient, it is strange how can the landlord be ordered to make himself comfortable in that accommodation and that the same would be sufficient to meet his requirement. 32. In the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority it has been found that the accommodation vacated by Gian Sagar has been kept for use and occupation of the younger son of the landlord, i e. Narinder. In a place like Shimla friends and relations, living in other parts of the country, very often come to this place during acute summer days and some portion has to be kept in order to meet their needs and requirement. Simply because at one point of time the landlord for some economic or financial stringencies or for different reasons has let out his building, would not justify the stand taken by the tenant in dismissing the ejectment petition Once the landlord is able to establish on record that the need is genuine and bonafide, it would not frustrate his right for seeking orders of ejectment of the tenant directing him to hand over the possession to landlord. Sufficient cause’ has to be construed liberally sq as to advance the object for which the provision has been made in the statute. 33. Sufficient cause’ has to be construed liberally sq as to advance the object for which the provision has been made in the statute. 33. About the scope of this Court, It has to be kept in view that while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, this Court will not sit as a Court of appeal to re-appraise the evidence placed on record by the parties, if it is said correctly, it is not permissible When findings of fact have been recorded by the Rent Controller and have been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and that too on appreciation of the evidence, the High Court would not be justified in looking at the material from a deferent angle or substitute its own wisdom. That would be travelling completely outside the ambit and scope of this power. 34. It may further be made clear that this Court shall certainly interfere and reverse the findings if it is shown that the orders of ejectment are based on no material or are based on fictitious material or suffer from any patent error of law or perversity. In that situation, the findings of fact would certainly loose their binding force. 35. The learned Counsel appearing for the tenant has not been able to persuade me to take a different view of the matter than the one which has been reached by the learned Courts below. No case has been made out on the strength of which it could be said that the material placed on record has been misread, mis-construed or mis-interpreted. 35. A word of caution is desired to be added that in cases of bona fide requirement, the Courts should make every possible endeavour to dispose of such matters finally as expeditiously as possible. Otherwise, the very purpose for which the provision is made, stands frustrated. In the present case the eviction petition was filed in January, 1987. It has taken more than three years for the Rent Controller to dispose it of finally. Otherwise, the very purpose for which the provision is made, stands frustrated. In the present case the eviction petition was filed in January, 1987. It has taken more than three years for the Rent Controller to dispose it of finally. It has further taken more than three years before the learned Appellate Authority and further a little more than three years have been consumed in this Court in the present revision petition If the petition seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement takes such a long time to reach ultimate decision, some changes here and there by the exigencies of the situation, are bound to happen Every effort should be made to avoid such hardships 37. For the reasons recorded above, no case has been made out for interference nor any such subsequent event has been established which disentitles the landlord in seeking the ejectment of the tenant 38. In case the tenant files an undertaking in the shape of an affidavit that he would peacefully surrender vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord alongwith all arrears of rent including statutory interest due upto date, he is given a period of four months to vacate the premises, ie. on or before 1st August, 1997 This undertaking be filed within one week from today failing which the tenant is ordered to be evicted forthwith. 39. The revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with the aforesaid observations with costs throughout. Revision Petition dismissed.