Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the orders, passed by the Courts below, whereby the ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller and the Appeal, filed by the tenant, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Smt. Satya Devi and Shakuntla Devi, filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against K.K. Yadav (tenant), seeking his eviction from the demised premises, on the ground that the building in question was purchased by them (Smt. Satya Devi, etc.), vide sale deed dated 22.10.1982 and 25.10.1982 and that the husband of Smt Satya Devi was occupying the ground floor of the building in question and was running his business therein, whereas K.K. Yadav was a tenant on the first floor and Barsati under the original owner and after the purchase of the building, they (Satya Devi, etc.) had become entitled to receive the rent as landladies and that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. They sought the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent and that applicant No. 1, Smt Satya Devi required the building for her residence, as she did not have any other building in Bhatinda for her residence and had not vacated any such building after the coining into force of the Rent Act and that they had bona fide necessity since she was residing in a rented house and it will be beneficial for the family as the husband of applicant No. 1, Smt Satya Devi was running his business on the ground floor and she can help her husband. The said petition was contested by KK Yadav, tenant alleging therein that he came to know about the purchase of building by the applicants on receipt of a written notice. He admitted that he was a tenant under the applicants qua the demised premises on the same terms and conditions. It was alleged that rent upto 31.3.1983 stood paid to the previous owner and for the subsequent period had been tendered on the first date of hearing, besides interest and costs. However, it was alleged that there was no liability to pay the house tax. It was alleged that rent upto 31.3.1983 stood paid to the previous owner and for the subsequent period had been tendered on the first date of hearing, besides interest and costs. However, it was alleged that there was no liability to pay the house tax. It was further alleged that the applicants, Smt. Satya Devi and another had no necessity to get the house vacated. It was denied that they had any bona fide personal necessity. 3. After hearing both sides, the learned Rent Controller found that the applicants, Smt. Satya Devi, etc., had personal necessity for the demised premises and hence ordered the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises. The appeal filed by the tenant, was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, upholding the findings of the Rent Controller, regarding the personal necessity of the applicants, Smt Satya Devi etc. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant filed the present revision petition in this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. It was submitted before me by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that since Smt. Satya Devi was already residing in a rented premises, she had no personal need to shift to the demised premises and as such, the Courts below had erred in law in ordering the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises. 6. Reliance was placed on the law laid down in the case reported Ramesh Kumar v. Atma Devi and Ors., (1985-1) 87 P.L.R. 751 (F.B). 7. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find no merit in this petition and it is liable to be dismissed. 8. In (1985-1)87 P.L.R. 751 (supra) it was held by the Full Bench of this Court that the words "another building" could not be interpreted to mean that the building in occupation of the landlord must be his own or that he must hold that building in the same character. It was further held that there is no absolute bar for a landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant from his own house, if he, is occupying another premises in the same urban area as lessee and the landlord would be entitled to claim ejectment of his tenant if the premises in his occupation are not sufficient/suitable for his needs or he has some other reasonable cause to vacate the same. It was further held that the landlord occupying another premises in the urban area concerned as tenant, would be entitled to eject his own tenant if there is sufficient cause for him to vacate the premises in his occupation or the same are not sufficient/suitable for his needs. 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Honble Full Bench in Ramesh Kumars case (supra), it is to be seen as to whether the ejectment sought by the landladies in the present case, could be termed as bona fide. Even if the landlord of the premises, in which Smt. Satya Devi, applicant is presently residing, is not pressing her to vacate the same, still it is to be considered as to whether the existing accommodation is sufficient/suitable for her requirements in the present case, it has been found by the Courts below that the existing accommodation in her possession was not suitable whereas she required the demised premises on the first floor and Barsati for her residence because her husband was already occupying the ground floor and is running his business and the landlady wanted to help him in his business, by residing on the first floor of the building in question. In my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Courts below were perfectly justified in holding that the requirement of the landlady was bona fide and she was entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises. Both the Courts below had considered the law laid down by the Full Bench in Ramesh Kumars case (supra) and it was thereafter that they had come to the conclusion that the existing accommodation with Smt. Satya Devi, landlady was not suitable and she required the demised premises for her residence. I find no illegality or impropriety in the findings given by the Courts below with regard to the personal necessity of Smt. Satya Devi, landlady, being bona fide. This is especially so when the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out anything on the record which may justify interference by this Court in the present revision petition. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is allowed two months time from today to vacate the premises.