VIKRAMAJIT SEN ( 1 ). The Tenant/revisionist had disputed the ownership of the Respondent. He had also contended that the premises had been let out for commercial purposes. On these two grounds the Additional Rent Controller has found against the Tenant. These two grounds have not been argued before me. ( 2 ). It has also been contended by the tenant/revisionist that the accommodation available in the premises presently occupied by the Landlady not only are three bedrooms, one drawing/dining room etc. on the ground Floor, but identical accommodation on the First floor also. In the evidence led by the tenant/revisionist, even this ground had been ignored. It ie relevant that in order to prove the falsity of the tenant s contention, the Landlord had moved an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner which was vehemently opposed by the Tenant. The additional Rent Controller had disposed of this application with leave to the Landlord to file photographs. It is not controvertible that accommodation similar to the Ground Floor is not available on the First Floor. In fact temporary structures have been constructed thereon and school/college is being run, as appears from the photographs filed in the Trial Court, and shown by learned counsel for the Landlady. ( 3 ). In the eviction petition it had been contended that the Landlady has three sons and two daughters. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, had submitted that even if it be assumed that the daughters were not living in their parental house, there was still an extreme paucity of accommodation keeping in view the need of the sons of the Landlady, ( 4 ). The Additional Rent Controller has approached the entire dispute with the perspective of taking into account the members of the Landlady a family and thereafter considering the accommodation available to the Landlady. I find no error in the impugned Order inasmuch as the Landlady and members of her family cannot be comfortably accommodated in the three bedrooms presently available with the Landlady. Mr. Duggal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Tenant had contended that the eldest son had been living in Lodhi colony, New Delhi and a second son had taken up rented accommodation in Rohini, Delhi. These arguments were proffered with the view of reducing the number of family members. Mr. Duggal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Tenant had contended that the eldest son had been living in Lodhi colony, New Delhi and a second son had taken up rented accommodation in Rohini, Delhi. These arguments were proffered with the view of reducing the number of family members. As I see it, if the sons were living separately it would be fair to draw the inference that the accommodation available with the Landlady was insufficient. It would be unfair to insist that a landlord should be compelled to live in tenanted premises while his own Premises should be occupied by a tenant. It is now well settled that the residential accommodation is so acute, that even after their marriage, sons who may have independent incomes are constrained to depend on their parents for residential accommodation. In this view, there can scarcely be any malafides in the Landlady seeking an eviction of the revisionist/tenant so that her own family can be accommodated. ( 5 ). I find no Jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The petition is without merit and is dismissed. ( 6 ). This application is also accordingly dismissed.