Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. This is revision filed by Raj Kumar-tenant against the order of Appellate Authority, Jalandhar dated 27.11.2001 whereby he allowed the appeal of Ashwani Kumar and another-landlords and ordered his ejectment from House No. 32 situated in Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar and thus, set aside the order of Rent Controller, Jalandhar dated 4.12.1996 whereby their ejectment application had been dismissed. 2. Facts : Ashwani Kumar and Rakesh Kumar sons of Kewal Krishan r/o WP 32, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar-petitioners filed ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") for the ejectment of Raj Kumar-tenant from H.No. 32, shown red in the site plan Ex.A-2 attached thereto situated in Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar. It is alleged in this application that they purchased this house vide sale deed dated 26.12.1991 for their own use and occupation. Raj Kumar is a tenant at a rental of Rs. 50/- power month. He is liable to be ejected on the ground that he is in arrears of rent with effect from 26.12.1991 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month, which he has failed to pay to Ashwani Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, petitioners-landlords. Ashwani Kumar has three members of his family, which includes besides himself, his wife, one son and one daughter. Rakesh Kumar has also three members of his family which includes besides himself his wife and two sons. At present they are residing in the house of their father consisting of one room and one kitchen which has been shown in green in the site plan and one room on rent from Roshan Lal. House No. 33 is adjacent to the house in dispute. They are in possession of first floor of House No. 32. Accommodation on the first floor with them is insufficient. Rakesh Kumar is a doctor. He requires accommodation for the treatment of patients, who visit him in the morning as well as in the evening in emergency cases. Their father has asked them to vacate the accommodation with them in House No. 33 as their father feels insufficiency of accommodation with him in House No. 33. They have no other accommodation, which they call look to for meeting their requirement other than House No. 32. They have neither purchased nor sold nor have vacated any other accommodation since the enactment of the Act. 3. They have no other accommodation, which they call look to for meeting their requirement other than House No. 32. They have neither purchased nor sold nor have vacated any other accommodation since the enactment of the Act. 3. Raj Kumar-tenant contested this application, urging that they are in possession of adequate accommodation in a house which is Joint Hindu Family Property. They have vested interest in the property which is already in their possession. It is alleged that residential accommodation cannot be asked for business purpose. It was denied that the rate of rent is Rs. 50/- per month. In fact the rate of rent is Rs. 20/- per month. 4. Rent was tendered at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month on the first date of hearing, which was accepted by the counsel for Ashwani Kumar and Rakesh Kumar under protest, tender being invalid. 5. Rent Controller, Jalandhar dismissed this ejectment application in view of his finding that the rate of rent was Rs. 20/- per month and tender made was valid. 6. Rent Controller, Jalandhar dismissed this application in view of his finding that rate of rent is Rs. 20/- per month and tender made was valid. They are already in occupation of adequate accommodation in house Nos. 32 and 33. They need no more accommodation in house No. 32. Accommodation presently in their occupation in houses Nos. 32 and 33 is adequate for their own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of their family/father. 7. Ashwani Kumar and Rakesh Kumar went in appeal which was allowed by Appellate Authority, Jalandhar. 8. In this revision petition, following point of law arises :- "Whether the landlord can ask for the ejectment of his tenant on mere wish or whether it is the duty of the Rent Control Authority to examine whether there is element of need and he has pressing necessity for the premises in occupation of the tenant, for his own use and Occupation" ? 9. Rakesh Kumar AW-1 stated that he and his brother Ashwani Kumar has purchased House No. 32 vide sale deed Ex.A-1 (certified copy) in the year, 1991 for their own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of their families. Besides them, their parents are also residing with them. They are all residing on the first floor of House No. 33. Besides them, their parents are also residing with them. They are all residing on the first floor of House No. 33. Besides, his father has taken one room on rent from Roshan Lal in house No. 33 which has been shown as mark A at rental of Rs. 100/- per month. Their entire family is in occupation of first floor of house No. 32, which comprises of one room and one store. In house No. 33, entire family is in occupation of two rooms and one kitchen. The accommodation in their occupation in houses Nos. 32 and 33 is in adequate. Besides he is a doctor. Patients come to him in emergency in the morning as well as in the evening. For examination of patients, he needs one room. He stated that they have no right to keep occupying house No. 33 as house No. 33 is owned and possessed by his father and they are mere licensees. Their father has asked them to vacate saying that they should shift to their own house. Rakesh Kumar is in occupation of first floor of House No. 32. Rakesh Kumar is in possession of ground floor of house No. 32 shown red in site plan Ex.A-2. House No. 32 comprises of two floors. Similarly, House No. 33. comprises of two floors. Vijay Kumar PW-2, stated that House No. 33 is ancestral property of the petitioners and their father. 10. There is no evidence that House No. 33 is the sole ownership of their father Kewal Krishan and they are in occupation of house No. 33 as licensees of their father. Their father was not produced by them. If he had been produced and if he had stated that he was the sole owner of house No. 33, he could have been cross-examined by the tenant on that point. On the ground floor of house No. 33, there are six rooms, kitchen, bath, deodi etc. On the first floor of house No. 33, there are three rooms, bath, kitchen. House No. 33 is in occupation of Rakesh Kumar, Ashwani Kumar and their father. 11. Whole of house No. 33 is in occupation of the petitioners and their father, while first floor of house No. 32 is in their occupation. There are six rooms in house No. 33 on the ground floor and three rooms on the first floor, besides one bath room each. 11. Whole of house No. 33 is in occupation of the petitioners and their father, while first floor of house No. 32 is in their occupation. There are six rooms in house No. 33 on the ground floor and three rooms on the first floor, besides one bath room each. 12. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that entire house No. 33 is not in occupation of Rakesh Kumar and Ashwani Kumar. In fact that house is in occupation of their father and his other brothers. They are in possession of only part of that house and that too as licensees of their father. It was submitted that each of them has three members of their family. Besides themselves. Their children are in growing age and are studying in higher classes. They require separate rooms for their study. They want to make their living comfortable. Their need is genuine and it is not a mere excuse on their part to throw out the tenant with a view to earning more rent. 13. It would bear repetition that house No. 33 is solely owned by their father and they have every interest in it and they are mere not licensees. It is in evidence that they have purchased another house situated in Deol Colony, Jalandhar. In Deol Colony, they have five marla house. It has been admitted by them in their rejoinder that construction of three rooms is going on. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they can look to the five marla house situated in Deol Colony, Jalandhar for their use and occupation apart from the accommodation available to them in house Nos. 32 and 33. The fact remains fact the whole of house No. 33 comprising of two floors is in occupation of Ashwani Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and their father. There is no evidence that any accommodation in house No. 33 is in occupation of the brothers of the father of Ashwani Kumar and Rakesh Kumar that house was jointly owned by Kewal Krishan with his brothers. 15. Keeping in view the accommodation of the families of Ashwani Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, I do not think the accommodation in their occupation presently in house Nos. 32 and 33 is not adequate enough to meet their requirement. They are in occupation of both the floors of house No. 33. 15. Keeping in view the accommodation of the families of Ashwani Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, I do not think the accommodation in their occupation presently in house Nos. 32 and 33 is not adequate enough to meet their requirement. They are in occupation of both the floors of house No. 33. Besides one of them can look to 5 marla house in Deol Colony, Jalandhar where construction is going on. 16. For the reasons given above, in my opinion there is merit in this revision petition, which has to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. In consequence the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside while that of the Rent Controller, dismissing the ejectment application is restored. Ejectment application stands dismissed. No order as to costs.