Manmohan Sarin, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, who happens to be a tenant in the first floorof premises bearing Municipal No. E-116, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi, has filed thisrevision petition, against the order of eviction dated 30. 5. 1997, passed by thelearned Additional Rent Controller, under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-Bof the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ). ( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, culminating in filing of the present revision petition, maybe noticed: (I) Respondent is the owner of the premises in suit. He retired from theindian Navy in the year 1994. The premises in suit had been let outby the late father of the respondent, Shri Shiv Charan Lal Sharma tothe petitioner. Respondent s father is stated to have died on28. 4. 1986,leaving behind, besides the respondent, his second wife, i. e. the stepmother of the respondent; and one daughter, i. e. the step-sister of therespondent. The step-mother and step-sister of the respondentexecuted and registered relinquishment deeds, relinquishing theirrights in the property in favour of the respondent. The Delhidevelopment Authority and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi alsomutated the property in the name of the respondent in their records. The case of the respondent is that the understanding between himand his step-mother and step-sister was that the respondent wouldnot disturb his step-mother, who was in occupation of the groundfloor of the house, during hcr life-time and it was on this undcrstandingthat the relinquishment deeds were executed by them. (ii) Respondent s family comprises the respondent, his wife, a daughter-around 191020 years of age; a son over 20 years, who is now statedto have joined the Navy; and another son around 14 years of age. (iii) Respondent, after his retirement from the Indian Navy tookemployment with M/s. Manorma Packaging and has been residingin a rented accommodation at R-5/29, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, at amonthly rental of Rs. 5,000. 00. It is the respondent s case that herequires the premises in suit, viz. the first floor of House No. E-l 16,ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi, for his own residence and for theresidence of the members of his family, who are dependent uponhim. Respondent s daughter is presently doing a course with the Allindia Management Association at Lodhi Estate, New Delhi and isrequired to commute daily from Ghaziabad to Delhi. the first floor of House No. E-l 16,ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi, for his own residence and for theresidence of the members of his family, who are dependent uponhim. Respondent s daughter is presently doing a course with the Allindia Management Association at Lodhi Estate, New Delhi and isrequired to commute daily from Ghaziabad to Delhi. Respondentand his family members, it is stated, want to reside in their own houseand move out from the rented accommodation. The ground floor ofthe premises in suit, i. e. E-116, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi, is inoccupation of his step-mother, who, as per the understanding withher, is not to be disturbed therefrom. Out of the three bedroomsavailable to her, she requires one room for her own bedroom; anotherroom has been converted asapooja room; and the third room is beingused for paying-guests, which provide her a source of income to thestep-mother after the death of respondent s father. (iv) Leave to contest was granted by the learned Additional Rent Controlleron 13. 2. 1996 and after the completion of pleadings, the resplendentexamined himself, his landlady at Ghaziabad and his step-mother. The petitioner examined himself alone. The learned Additional Rentcontroller, after appreciation of evidence on record, in a well-reasoned judgment, passed the order of eviction, holding that thepremises in suit were let out for residential purpose and were bonafide required by the respondent for his residence and-4hat therespondent did not possess any suitable alternate accommodation. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T ger Singh, has assailed theimpugned order on the ground that the respondent is permanently settled atghaziabad. He is gainfully employed there and that is why he has takenaccommodation at Ghaziabad at a monthly rental of Rs. 5,000. 00 and not chosen totake accommodation, even on rent, anywhere in Gurgaon, Noidaor Delhi. Learnedcounsel submits that even before his retirement, respondent had negotiated andobtained employment in Ghaziabad and he continues to be gainfully employed andhas no reason or desire to shift therefrom. He submits that he is well-settled inghaziabad and there is nothing by way of documentary evidence to show as to whyrespondent wants to shift to Delhi. It is his case that he has no intention to shift todelhi. Respondent s son is stated to be studying at Delhi Public School at Ghaziabad. He submits that he is well-settled inghaziabad and there is nothing by way of documentary evidence to show as to whyrespondent wants to shift to Delhi. It is his case that he has no intention to shift todelhi. Respondent s son is stated to be studying at Delhi Public School at Ghaziabad. Alternatively, it is argued that if respondent wants to shift to Delhi, he hassufficient accommodation available on the ground floor of the premises in suit. Theold lady, who is around 72 years of age, requires only one room. It is stated that thestory about paying-guests is a concocted one and there is no permission taken to runthe guest house from the Munid pal and other authorities. The respondent, hithertobefore, never made any request, either before or after his retirement, for vacatingthe house, which showed that he had no intention to reside in the premises in suit. The eviction petition had been filed with the sole purpose of re-letting the premisesat a higher rate of rent. ( 4 ) ON a consideration of the matter and the evidence on record, I find thesubmission of the petitioner, to bedevoid of merit. It is well-settled that the landlordis the best udge of his residential requirements and it was for the landlord to decidehow and in what manner he should live. If the landlord wants to beneficially enjoyhis own property when the other property, occupied by him as a tenant or on anyother basis, is either insecure or inconvenient, it is not for the Courts to dictate tohim to continue to occupy such premises. It is also not necessary for a landlord tofirst shift to some rented accommodation and then file a petition for eviction toestablish his bona fide intention to shift to the premises in suit. Reference in thisconnection may may be made to the judgments in Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T. V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353 and Deepika Arora v. S. N. Sehgal and Ors. , 1995 RLR219=58 (1995) DLT 729. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, the respondent, immediately after his retirement, tookthe accommodation on rent at Chaziabad. Respondent s daughter is required tocommute from Ghaziabad to Delhi everyday and his old step-mother is living alonein the premises on the ground floor. , 1995 RLR219=58 (1995) DLT 729. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, the respondent, immediately after his retirement, tookthe accommodation on rent at Chaziabad. Respondent s daughter is required tocommute from Ghaziabad to Delhi everyday and his old step-mother is living alonein the premises on the ground floor. In these circumstances, if the respondent wantshimself or members of his family to shift to his own house, such a desire cannot besaid to be a feigned desire or a pretense. ( 6 ) DURING the course of arguments, it has been stated at the bar, which fact isnot disputed, that the respondent has ceased to be in the employment of M/s. Manorma Packaging and has taken over as the Principal of Brig. Rana Singh Publicschool at Dujana, Rohtak. Respondent has already left Ghaziabad to take charge atrohtak, while his family continues to live at Ghaziabad. In these circumstances, itwould be a compulsive necessity for the respondent to have his family shifted to thepremises in suit at Delhi. ( 7 ) THE next objection of the petitioner is that there is sufficient accommodationavailable to the respondent on the ground floor of the premises in suit, which arepresently in the occupation of the step-mother of the respondent. It would be seenthat respondent s family, comprising two adults, his grown up daughter and sons,would require at least three bedrooms, which would not be available on the groundfloor of the premises. This is without taking into account the growing requirementsof the respondent s elder son, who is presently under training in the Navy atvishakapatnam. It has also come in evidence that even during die period when the petitionerwas in service, on his posting in Delhi in 1989, respondent could stay with the stepmotheronly for a period of five months or so while he could not get alternateaccommodation. Respondent and his family found themselves uncomfortable, ashas been deposed by therespondentandhisstep-mother, resulting in the respondenttaking rented accommodation in Delhi from January, 198 9/06/1990, prior to theallotment of the official accommodation. The step-mother of the respondent hadappeared in the witness box and supported the respondent. She had also deposedabout her keeping paying guests and the amount the paying guests were paying, which provided her with her source of income. The said testimony stands unrebutted. It would, therefore, be seen that the ground floor of the premises cannot be regardedas alternate suitable accommodation available to the respondent. She had also deposedabout her keeping paying guests and the amount the paying guests were paying, which provided her with her source of income. The said testimony stands unrebutted. It would, therefore, be seen that the ground floor of the premises cannot be regardedas alternate suitable accommodation available to the respondent. ( 8 ) LASTLY, learned Counsel for the petitioner, had feebly attempted to urge thatthe premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose. Petitioner hassingularly failed to lead any evidence in this regard and the learned Additional Rentcontroller, for good reasons, as set out in para 8 of the judgment, rejected thecontention. ( 9 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, I find no infirmity or error in theimpugned order. The revision petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.