R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) RC-REV. 30 of 2004 is directed against the judgment dated 9. 1. 2004 of the Additional Rent controller (for short the Controller ) in E-258/2000 whereby the learned Controller has, while disposing of a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ), held that the landlord has been able to prove his bona fide needs and decreed the suit for eviction in respect of the tenanted premises No. C-332, Defence Colony, New Delhi. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Controller, are as follows : "it is stated that the petitioner is the landlord in respect of premises No. C-332, Ground FLOOR, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 and respondent No. 1 is a tenant in respect of one garage converted into a room measuring 18 x 9. 3 , lavatory, W. C. And kitchen as shown in site plan in red colour annexed with petition at the monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- per month plus Rs. 500/- as electricity charges and the premises in question were let out to the respondent No. 1 by late mother of petitioner in the year 1987 by way of oral agreement. It is stated that premises in question consists of ground floor, first floor and barsati floor as per the site plan. The same was registered with the Sub Registrar of Delhi at the time of getting the same free hold vide registration dated 30. 6. 98 and it is also stated that as per family settlement memorandum/partition deed dated 4. 9. 2000, the premises consisting of ground floor with garage and servant quarter and the terrace as available on the top of the bed room on the first floor and the said room devolved upon the petitioner. It is mentioned that the first floor is in possession of his brother Major T. P. S. Mahendra and barsati is also in his possession. It is stated that he and his brother entered into a partition and settlement as per the Wills left by the parents of the petitioner and his mother Smt. Sushil Kaur died on 6. 11. It is mentioned that the first floor is in possession of his brother Major T. P. S. Mahendra and barsati is also in his possession. It is stated that he and his brother entered into a partition and settlement as per the Wills left by the parents of the petitioner and his mother Smt. Sushil Kaur died on 6. 11. 1999 and the said portion on the ground floor devolved upon the petitioner and thus by virtue of his inheritance, respondent has paid the rent for the month of August and September 2000 to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has become the landlord of the premises. It is stated that family of petitioner consists of himself, his ailing wife, one son who is Major in Indian Army presently posted in Kargil, his daughter-in-law, one grand-son and one married daughter along with her husband and two sons as mentioned in para 18 (a) of the petition. It is stated that the accommodation available with the petitioner consists of two bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining, bath and kitchen with rear and front verandah and open space as applicable in the front and rear of the ground floor besides one servant quarter and a small room on the roof of the servant quarter which have been shown in blue colour in the site plan. It is stated that son of the petitioner is presently posted in a field area in Indian Army and his wife and children at the moment living with the petitioner and children are school going and the son of the petitioner is expected to be posted at Delhi in the early part of the next year and the daughter of the petitioner and her family presently in abroad also visit him along with children and her husband at least once in every year. The wife of the petitioner is suffering from incurable asthmatic disease which requires a regular attendant and a separate room so as to avoid disturbance and others catching the disease, therefore, it is stated that the accommodation available with the petitioner to accommodate himself and other family members is not sufficient for himself and for other family members as mentioned above in the suit premises. He has further stated that the petitioner is a retired Brigadier from Army and is a man of status and many respectable persons of society visit him and he entertains them in the drawing room which cannot be used for living of the other members and one small room is already rented to another tenant which was occupied during the petitioner s mother life time. It is also stated that petitioner has no other accommodation at Delhi nor the other heirs of petitioner have any residential accommodation available with them at Delhi and, therefore, the need of the petitioner for accommodation is very urgent and bona fide. Therefore, eviction order be passed in respect of the premises in possession of the respondent No. 1 and in favour of the petitioner shown in red colour in site plan. In the memo of parties respondents No. 2 nd 3 have been mentioned as proforma party being co-owners of the property. " ( 3 ) IT was contended by counsel for the petitioner that the landlord could not have maintained the petition since there is a bar in doing so under Section 14 (6) of the Act inasmuch as the landlord could not have filed a petition for eviction until the period prescribed therein was over. ( 4 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgment under challenge as also the material on record. It appears to me that the premises in question devolved on the respondent by way of a Will which apportioned various portions amongst the beneficiaries who, in turn, apportioned their shares and, therefore, the premises in question fell to the share of the respondent herein. Such a devolution of interest is not a bar under Section 14 (6) of the Act. Reference may be had to R. C. Sukhija vs. R. P. Kohli, 1970 RCR 226 and Onkar Singh and Ors. vs. Sahib Dittamal Kohli, 1970 RCR 80. ( 5 ) THE next submission of learned counsel was regarding the requirements of members of the family of the respondent who, he claimed, were all settled or not in the country and, therefore, their requirements cannot be taken into consideration. From the material on record it transpires that the family of the respondent consists of himself, his wife, his son, his daughter-in-law, their minor children as also a married daughter. From the material on record it transpires that the family of the respondent consists of himself, his wife, his son, his daughter-in-law, their minor children as also a married daughter. It was submitted that the son has been posted to South Africa on a military assignment and is not likely to come back to India while the married daughter is settled in Canada and is not likely to visit her parents in India. This contention, with great respect to the learned counsel, is mis-placed. The family ties do not snap merely because the daughter has got married and/or the son of the family is posted out, be it abroad. It is for the landlord to judge his requirements and the only thing that is to be seen is that the requirement is not fanciful. The trial court has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Meenal Eknath vs. Traders and Agencies, 1996 (4) SCC 344 as also Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1998 (8) SCC 119 . He also relied upon Jhalani Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs. B. S. Soni, 1994 RLR 46 , Brij Mohan vs. Shri Pal Jain, 49 (1993) DLT 543 and Brig. Ujagar Singh vs. Colour Camp Ltd. , 1998 RCR 40 and held that the family members of the landlord are dependent on him for the purpose of residence while in Delhi. The reasoning adduced by him is sound and I find no ground to differ from the same. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner thereafter challenged the extent of accommodation that was required. He submitted that there is ample accommodation available with the landlord to put up members of his family dependent upon him and that the premises with the tenant are not bona fide required by him. It is the case of the landlord that his wife is a chronic patient of bronchital asthma and needs a separate bed room for her comfort and for the comfort of the family. The son, is presently posted in South Africa on military assignment along with the daughter-in-law and their children, on their return, would require minimum two bed rooms. One room is required for an attendant to care for his ailing wife and a room is required for his daughter and son-in-law who visit the landlord occasionally. The son, is presently posted in South Africa on military assignment along with the daughter-in-law and their children, on their return, would require minimum two bed rooms. One room is required for an attendant to care for his ailing wife and a room is required for his daughter and son-in-law who visit the landlord occasionally. The accommodation at present available with the landlord is insufficient and, therefore, he needs the portion occupied by the tenant as well. The learned Controller has elaborately discussed this aspect of the matter and I concur with his reasoning. Surely, the landlord can have his family live with him in the evening years of his life and it cannot be said that his children and grand-children do not form part of his family for whom he can claim requirements of accommodation bona fide. ( 7 ) AS already stated, it is for the landlord to judge his requirements. The tenant can never dictate the landlord how he should conduct his affairs. Once the landlord is able to show that his needs are genuine and that the accommodation available with him is insufficient, the tenant must give way. In the present case, the landlord has been able to prove that he is the owner of the premises and needs it bona fide for residence of himself and his family. The premises was let out for residential purposes and that the landlord has no other suitable residential accommodation and, therefore, he is entitled to a decree of eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. The judgment under challenge being an exhaustive one answering all questions raised before the learned Controller, I find no ground to interfere. RC-Rev. 30 of 2004 and C. M. Appl. 5577 of 2004 are dismissed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .