Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the landlady Smt. Daropti Devi against the judgment dated March 25, 1994 passed by the Appellate Authority, Sonepat, vide which the application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short `the Act), has been dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had rented out the demised premises, which is a part of H.No. 2473, Ganaur City, Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat, to the respondents for the purpose of setting up a Post Office, at a monthly rent of Rs. 195/-. An eviction petition was filed against the respondents before the Rent Controller, who vide his judgment dated January 18, 1993 accepted rent application filed by the petitioner and ordered the eviction of the respondents on the ground that the tender of the rent by the respondents was invalid and also on the ground that the disputed building was bona fide required by the petitioner for her family. 3. The respondent-Union of India filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Sonepat, who vide his judgment dated March 25, 1994 accepted the appeal and held that there was no default on the part of the respondents in tendering the rent. The rent had been duly tendered. In fact, it was held that the landlady had desired much more than what was due from the respondents, who had paid excess rent on the date of filing of the eviction application. It was further held by the Appellate Authority that the demised premises were not required for personal use by the landlady. Thus, the appeal filed by the Union of India was accepted. 4. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlady, has contended that the landlady has a very large family and the premises in her occupation were insufficient for her needs. 5. However, a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the present eviction petition was presented before the Rent Controller on May 11, 1989. On April 2, 1987 the landlady had moved an application to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sonepat Division, Sonepat, informing him that she was not ready to offer her building for post office at the monthly rent of Rs. 195/-. However, she was ready and willing to offer the building at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. On April 2, 1987 the landlady had moved an application to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sonepat Division, Sonepat, informing him that she was not ready to offer her building for post office at the monthly rent of Rs. 195/-. However, she was ready and willing to offer the building at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. In this application the landlady did not state that she required the demised premises for her own use and occupation. By another application dated January 7, 1989 (Exhibit R9), the landlady wrote to the Superintendent, Postal Division, Sonepat, for increasing the rent of the demised premises from Rs. 195/- to Rs. 300/- per month. It is, thus, clear that till about four months prior to the filing of the ejectment application, the landlady was ready and willing to rent out the premises at a higher rent to the respondents. In case there had been any bona fide necessity or the demised premises were required for the use and occupation of the family of the petitioner, then she would not have written to the Superintendent of Post Offices, asking him to pay the higher rent for the premises in dispute. This clearly shows that the petitioner did not require the demised premises for her own use and occupation. 6. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the judgment dated March 25, 1994 passed by the Appellate Authority, Sonepat. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.