Judgment S.S.Sudhalkar, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the orders of Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. Respondents had filed the eviction petition against the petitioner which was allowed. The appeal filed over the same was also dismissed. 2. The case of the respondent - landlord is that the petitioner is in arrears of rent. It is further their case that the suit property is required by them for bona fide personal use. The contention of the respondents is that the suit property was ownership of Central Khalsa Yatim Khana-Chief Khalsa Dewan (hereinafter referred to as the original owner) and the petitioner was the tenant in it at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. it was purchased by the respondents from the original owner vide registered sale-deed dated 21.10.1991 and hence they become landlords of the petitioner who became their tenant. The petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent and the property was required bona fide by the respondents for their personal use. 3. The contention of the respondents is that they have two sons, namely, Gurmit Singh and Maninder Singh and three daughters, namely, Parvinder Kaur, Paramjit Kaur and Balbir Kaur. All the daughters are married and they along with their children often visit the house of the respondents. The respondents are in possession of only two rooms, bath room, store and kitchen. The rooms are very small and as such it is very difficult for the respondents and their family members to live there. It is also contended that they have no drawing room and they have no separate bath room for their sons. They are in possession of only one room with verandah converted into a small room instead. They have purchased the suit property enabling them to live comfortably and they have no other residential building nor they have vacated any such accommodation. Notice was served by the Rent Controller on the petitioner who filed written statement. He took a preliminary objection that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. He has contended that he is a tenant of the original owner and he still continues to be his landlord. The monthly rent is Rs. 25/-. Notice was served by the Rent Controller on the petitioner who filed written statement. He took a preliminary objection that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. He has contended that he is a tenant of the original owner and he still continues to be his landlord. The monthly rent is Rs. 25/-. It is further contended by the petitioner that the original owner was the limited owner of the property because it was bequeathed by Smt. Kunan Kaur to the original owner with a rider that the office bearers of the original owner cannot sell or alienate the same but they could use the income for running their affairs and hence the original owner still continues to be the owner. It is also contended that there was no legal and valid sale deed was executed in favour of the respondents and moreover no valid resolution was passed by the original owner for the sale of the property. It is further contended that if any such resolution was passed by the original owner, the same was illegal. It is also contended by the petitioner in the written statement that the original owner is a religious/charitable institution and its office bearers could use the income of the property but could not sell it. 4. However, on the first date of hearing, the petitioner tendered the rent reserving his right to claim the refund. It is contended that the accommodation available to the respondent is sufficient. It is denied that respondents have three daughters and if they have any such daughters, they are residing out of Amritsar or rather out of India and have never visited the respondents. It is further contended that elder son of the respondents is living at Nawan Shar and is employed there and other son of the respondents is also not living at Amritsar and, therefore, both the sons of the respondents have never visited Amritsar. It is also contended that the petition be dismissed. Replication was filed by the respondents. 5. The Rent Controller framed the issue. The first issue was regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The second issue was regarding bona fide requirement and the third issue was regarding the relief that could be granted. All the issues were decided in favour of the respondents. Replication was filed by the respondents. 5. The Rent Controller framed the issue. The first issue was regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The second issue was regarding bona fide requirement and the third issue was regarding the relief that could be granted. All the issues were decided in favour of the respondents. As stated earlier, the petitioner filed appeal against the judgment passed by the Rent Controller and the appeal having been dismissed, he has filed this revision petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the original owner is an orphanage. He has also argued that petitioner filed a civil suit challenging the sale deed in favour of the respondent and the suit is still pending. He has further argued that the Courts below should have decided that point raised by the petitioners, viz. whether the respondents were the landlords or not. in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority, it has been observed that the respondents have duly proved the sale deed executed in their favour by the original owner by bringing deed writer and attesting witnesses etc. and that the execution of the sale deed is also admitted by the petitioner in examination-in-chief wherein he has stated that the property was intentionally sold at a very low price to give benefit to its employees and the original owner has no right to sell the property. It has been observed that there was no dispute regarding the sale deed but the petitioner challenges the validity of the sale deed on the ground that the original owner had no right to alienate the charitable property donated by Kunan Kaur. 7. It has been further observed by the Appellate Authority that the Rent Court is not to decide the validity of the sale deed that it has to be decided by the Civil Court and the civil suit filed by the petitioner regarding the same is still pending in the Civil Court and that the sale-deed has not been declared null and void not it is set aside. Therefore, the respondents have become owners of the property in dispute. It is also held by the Appellate Authority that a tenant cannot challenge the title of the landlord. 8. Therefore, the respondents have become owners of the property in dispute. It is also held by the Appellate Authority that a tenant cannot challenge the title of the landlord. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before me the case of Devi Das. v. Mohan Lal, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1213. It has been held therein that it was not correct for the Appellate Authority to reject the tenants case that challenge could be made the validity of the sale deed executed in favour of Mohan Lal (person claiming to be the owner) because the tenant was not a party to it. It has been also observed therein that the Court had to record a finding on this point and the Appellate Authority did not permit counsel for the tenant to refer to evidence adduced on this aspect of the matter it has been further observed therein that the High Court also did not advert to it. It is not known as to whether this judgment, referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relates to a case between the landlord and a tenant, governed under any Rent Act. The Rent Controller, under the Rent Act applicable to the State of Punjab, is not in a position to decide the question of title and when the suit challenging the title is already pending, the facts of this case can be said to be totally different from the facts in the case of Devi Das (supra) and, therefore, the observations made therein cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, when the point agitated is already pending for decision before the Civil Court, the Rent Court was justified in not going into the same. 9. Though the petitioner has filed the suit, it is not shown that he has been able to obtain any injunction against the Rent Court(s) from proceeding with the eviction petition. It was for the Civil Court to consider whether, in view of the dispute before it, the Rent petition should be stayed or not. 10. In view of the above facts, I do not find that the Courts below have proceeded on a wrong tooting in not going into the question of title of the respondents. 11. It was for the Civil Court to consider whether, in view of the dispute before it, the Rent petition should be stayed or not. 10. In view of the above facts, I do not find that the Courts below have proceeded on a wrong tooting in not going into the question of title of the respondents. 11. The next question that arises for consideration is Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the respondents require the premises for bona fide and personal use. So far as the family of the respondents is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that they have two sons and three daughters. In the Rent petition both the sons and the daughters are stated to be married. In the replication which was filed subsequently, it has been stated that one son of the respondents, namely, Gurmit Singh is married and his family members often reside with the respondents and he also comes to the house of the respondents on Saturdays and Sundays and also on every holiday. It is further stated in the replication that the other son of the respondents, namely, Maninder Singh is unmarried and is living with them and he is working with Sachdeva Sheller, Amritsar. 12. A finding has been arrived at regarding the family members of the respondents and it has been held by the Appellate Authority that Gurmit Singh, son of the respondents, is employed in a seasonal mill and he used to do service there for some specified months during the season and there was no documentary evidence on record to show that he resides at Nawan Shahr permanently. It has been also held by the Appellate Authority that wife of the respondent-Hazara Singh also resides with him. Relying on the evidence of the respondents it has been held to have been proved that three married daughters of the respondents are having children and they visit Amritsar on holidays. 13. This shows that the respondents family consists of the their two sons, one of them is married (during the pendency of the Rent petition) and three married daughters With this position, it will be proper to consider the accommodation available to the respondents. 13. This shows that the respondents family consists of the their two sons, one of them is married (during the pendency of the Rent petition) and three married daughters With this position, it will be proper to consider the accommodation available to the respondents. A finding of fact has been arrived at that respondents are in possession of one room is 12 × 10 and the other room of 12 x 6-4" as also one room of 8-1/2 x 11-1/2 and the other room of 5 x 6. They are also having in possession of kitchen, bath room and verandah. One of the room viz. 5 x 6 is held to be a store room. One bed room will be required by the married son and the other room by the unmarried son. With this position, when there is no other room, or even a drawing room; the question will be whether the accommodation in favour of the respondents is sufficient or that they require additional accommodation for bona fide and personal use. It is proved that the respondents are having three married daughters and it can never be expected that the married daughters will not visit the house of the respondents. The petitioner has gone to the extent of denying that the respondents have married daughters and alternatively pleaded that if it is proved that they have married daughters then they are living out of Amritsar and rather out of India and never visit the respondents. It is too harsh to expect the married daughters not to visit the house of the parents. If the married daughters are staying out of, Amritsar then, on the contrary, the respondents will certainly require rooms for them to stay when they visit. It cannot be said that married daughters will visit during holidays and for attending some ceremonies only one after the other and not together. Moreover, it cannot be said that landlord should not allow his daughters to visit his house and should not permit any other guest also in order to accommodate his tenant. It will be too harsh to expect the same. Moreover, there is no drawing room. Therefore, the say of the respondents that they require the premises for their accommodation cannot be said to be frivolous. 14. It will be too harsh to expect the same. Moreover, there is no drawing room. Therefore, the say of the respondents that they require the premises for their accommodation cannot be said to be frivolous. 14. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that if the respondents require the premises, they should not have purchased the tenanted building, he has cited before me the case of Salim Ahmed v. Surjit Kumar Sahai, (1998-3)120 P.L.R. 182. It is a judgment of this Court. The judgment in the case of Jetha Nand v. Ram Chander and Anr., (1966)68 P.L.R. 377 was considered in it. The paragraph of that judgment considered in the case of Salim Ahmed (supra) was as under :- ".......One would expect in the normal course that displaced person who purchases a house for as much as Rs.24,000.00 does so with the object of occupying it for the residence of himself and members of his family. He certainly does not pay such a considerable sum in order to realise the nominal rent which the tenants have been paying as allottees under the Custodian which ordinarily is a grossly inadequate return on the capital invested. Thus when a landlord-says that he does want to occupy the house himself, there should be no difficulty in the Courts believing him unless cogent reasons exist for doubting his bona fide in this respect. The fact that landlord feels compelled, in order to meet the requirements of the Court to invent some unconvincing reasons to support his natural desire to occupy his own house, ought not in my opinion to be held against him." 15. After considering the judgment in the case of Jetha Nand (supra), it has been observed in the case of Salim Ahmed (supra) as under :- "As one glances through the judgment it appears that it was so observed keeping in view the facts of that case and it was one of the reasons why the order of eviction was sustained. It was not the ratio of the decision that when ever a landlord purchases a house he can automatically be taken to be requiring the property bona fide. The facts of each case have to be examined on its own." 16. From the above quoted paragraph, it is clear that every case has to be judged from its own evidence. It was not the ratio of the decision that when ever a landlord purchases a house he can automatically be taken to be requiring the property bona fide. The facts of each case have to be examined on its own." 16. From the above quoted paragraph, it is clear that every case has to be judged from its own evidence. Of course, it has been held that it was not the ratio of the decision in the case of Jetha Nand (supra) that whenever a landlord purchases a house he can automatically be taken to be requiring the property for bona fide requirement. However, if a property, in which a tenant is there, is purchased by the landlord then it by itself does not bar his right to obtain possession on the ground of bona fide requirement. It may be mentioned that in certain Rent Acts there is a provision e.g. the Bombay Rent Act as applicable to Gujarat, in which a person purchasing the property after 1.1.1964 is not treated to be a landlord for the purpose of Section 13(a)(g) of the said Act, which provides for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. This is not the position here. 17. In view of the above reasons, I do not find that this case is worth interfering with the findings and, orders of the Courts below. This revisipn petition is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed.