JUDGMENT Manmohan Singh, J.-This civil revision petition has been filed under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act) for setting aside the impugned order dated 9th July, 2007 passed by the learned ARC in eviction petition No. 132/2006 thereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein has been allowed. 2. Brief facts as per the petition for eviction are that the respondent is the landlord/ owner of the tenanted premises. The petitioner is a tenant under him. The premises was let out to the petitioner by the previous owner Smt. Bimla Devi wife of Sh. Hukum Chand. 3. At the time of filing of the petition, the rent was Rs. 100 per month excluding electricity charges which are payable by the petitioner@ Rs. 3.25 per unit as per the rate of sub-meter installed in the tenanted premises. The suit property consists of six rooms situated at ground floor and first floor. 4. The respondent filed the petition for bona fide requirement for his residential purposes as well as for himself and family members. 5. The respondent has four daughters and three sons. The eldest daughter and son are married. He has placed on record site plan of the said property by giving points for identification of the rooms. Ths room marked A is situated at ground floor which is a Bathakl drawing room, which is required for visitors I guests. Room marked B is bedroom of the respondent and his wife. Room marked C is bedroom shared by two daughters of the respondent. Room marked 0 is the bedroom of the married son namely 5h. Anand Verma. The room marked E is Pooja Ghar. The younger daughter and son of the respondent have no bedroom and they sleep in open Verandah and during rainy season they have no shelter. Room marked F situated at first floor is in possession of the petitioner Itenant. 6. It is further submitted that younger daughter of the respondent is stud ying in college and she has no stud y room and the grand -son namely T arun Verma also requires separate room for studies. It is further submitted that the younger son of the respondent is likely to be married very soon. 6. It is further submitted that younger daughter of the respondent is stud ying in college and she has no stud y room and the grand -son namely T arun Verma also requires separate room for studies. It is further submitted that the younger son of the respondent is likely to be married very soon. Therefore, he would also require a separate room and if the tenanted premises is not vacated then the landlord has no option except to shift his younger son to a rental property. The married daughter of the respondent also visits the house accompanied with her husband and children and for their residence, the respondent and his wife are forced to sleep in open Verandah, which is marked X and as such the respondent has a big family to support and the accommodation with him is highly insufficient and the petitioner on the other hand also owns a property which is duly constructed up to second floor at K-100, Gali No.3, Teesra Pushta, Gautam Vihar, East Delhi, where the son of the petitioner is residing and the petitioner can also reside in that property. But he just wants to blackmail the respondent and he is casually residing with his wife in the tenancy premises and even he knows the bona fide need of the respondent. But the petitioner just wants to get a handsome amount from the respondent and is not vacating the tenancy premises. 7. It was further averred in the eviction petition that the property was purchased by the respondent on 12th July, 1995 from its previous owner namely Sh. Munna Lal by way of GP A, Will, agreement deed, receipt, etc. It is further submitted that 5h. Munna Lal had purchased the property from 5mt. Bimla Oevi wife of 5h. Hukum Chand, vide GP A, Will, agreement deed, receipt, etc and the tenanted premises was earlier let out to the petitioner by Smt. Bimla Oevi. 8. It is further alleged in the eviction petition that respondent himself was tenant since 1967 under 5mt. Bimla Oevi prior to purchase of the aforesaid property and now more than five years have expired after the date of purchase of this property by the respondent. The petitioner is paying rent to him since July 1995. 9. In reply to the eviction petition the petitioner has admitted the relationship between landlord and tenant, the rent of Rs. Bimla Oevi prior to purchase of the aforesaid property and now more than five years have expired after the date of purchase of this property by the respondent. The petitioner is paying rent to him since July 1995. 9. In reply to the eviction petition the petitioner has admitted the relationship between landlord and tenant, the rent of Rs. 100/ - per month is also not denied. But it was specifically denied that the rent is required to be enhanced to the extent of Rs. 2000/- per month. The contention of the petitioner was that the thrust of the respondent for enhancement of rent is not under bona fide requirement. The petitioner is residing at the tenanted premises for the last 30 years. The respondent himself was the tenant along with him earlier. 10. It is further alleged in the reply that the petitioner received a notice dated 5th August, 2004 through the Counsel of respondent and the petitioner a for the first time came to know that the respondent had become the owner of the tenanted premises and was claiming rent which is due from the petitioner. Therefore, period of five years have not yet been expired for filing a petition under Section 14(1)(e), ORC Act and as such the petition of the respondent was liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise it is specifically denied by the petitioner that the respondent had purcha5ed the property from Sh. Munna Lal. 11. The petitioner raised a question whether the eviction petition of the respondent could be termed as based on bona fide requirement who has offered to continue tenancy on increased rent and on tenants refusal to increase the rent filed eviction petition. It was submitted that the conduct of the respondent/ landlord who filed the eviction petition immediately after refusal to increase rent upto 20 times of existing rent is mala fide and illegal and there is no bona fide requirement of the landlord existing. 12. It was argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the conduct of the respondent is very relevant material factor for deciding the question of bona fide requirement. 12. It was argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the conduct of the respondent is very relevant material factor for deciding the question of bona fide requirement. He relied upon the case of Amarjit Singh v. Smt. Khatoon Quamrain,31 (1987) OLT 72 (SC)=AIR 1987SC 741, wherein it was held that the landlord after the need arose could have taken possession of the another reasonable accommodation but not doing so, he is disentitled to evict the tenant on the ground of bona fide need. 13. It is alleged that the respondent gave false evidence to the effect that he has no covered area on the second floor of his house. In the site plan itself, the large covered area on second floor of premises in possession of the petitioner has been shown. The covered area has walls on two sides and can very easily be used as rooms upon very little expenses. 14. It is submitted that though in the petition it has been stated by the respondent that one big room marked E in the site plan is being used as Pooja Ghar, the fact is that there is no Pooja Ghar and whatever Pooja has been done by the respondent and his family members is being performed in the room of the respondent and his wife, and sometimes on the covered area of the second floor: The room marked E is falsely shown as Pooja Ghar and is available for any requirement. 15. The questions which need consideration in the present case are: (a) whether the petition for eviction has been filed by the respondent for the purpose of enhancement of rent or on the basis of bona fide requirement? (b) when did the respondent purchased the property from the previous owner Munna Lal who had purchased the property from Smt. Bimla Devi? 16. It was submitted by the petitioner that respondent is running a press in Karol Bagh and the same was owned by him. Apart from the press, he has few spare rooms in this press which have been let out by him to his labourers who are working in his press. 17. It is not in dispute that the respondent has a joint family and they are living together and have common mess and using one kitchen which is situated on the ground floor. 17. It is not in dispute that the respondent has a joint family and they are living together and have common mess and using one kitchen which is situated on the ground floor. Another kitchen situated on the first floor is bigger in size than the average kitchen, and is being used by the younger daughter of the respondent as bedroom and study room and further the petitioner is in possession of one room and covered Verandah on the second floor. The property in Karol Bagh is a commercial property and the respondent cannot be compelled to bifurcate his family and shift one of the sons to some other place to give an accommodation to the petitioner. 18. It was rightly observed by learned ARC that the need of the married daughter rather increases in comparison to the previous need, as earlier the unmarried daughter of the landlord can adjust in the room of her brother or sister or parents but after marriage she needs separate room, whenever she comes to meet her parents. 19. It is settled law that each member of the family requires at least a comfortable place where he/ she can sleep. There exists a bona fide need for the respondent to evict the petitioner from the disputed property and the landlord is not expected to hurdle up together his grown up sons and daughters in an uncomfortable place and can claim legitimately additional accommodation which is in possession of the tenant for making his own life and that of his family members comfortable. The learned Additional Rent Controller thus carefully considered all the evidence on record and facts and circumstances of the present case and rightly passed the eviction order in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner in respect of the suit property. 20. There are around 9 members in the family existing and the landlord has no separate Pooja Ghar with him. It is settled law that neither the Court nor the tenant can dictate to the landlord the mode and manner in which he should live or to prescribe for him the residential standard on their own. The landlord must be left to assess his requirement in the background of his position, circumstances and status in the life and social and other responsibilities and other relevant factors. In judging his special needs and convenience, certainly the landlord would have a choice. The landlord must be left to assess his requirement in the background of his position, circumstances and status in the life and social and other responsibilities and other relevant factors. In judging his special needs and convenience, certainly the landlord would have a choice. The tenant cannot compel the landlord to live in a particular manner and it would be open to the parties to file an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to enable the ARC to appreciate not only the topography of the premises in question but also to appreciate whether the requirement of the respondent is bona fide or not. 21. In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., VIII (1998) SLT 374= 1998 (8) SCC 119 , this Court has held that the Rent Controller should not proceed on the assumption that the landlords requirement is not bona fide. When the landlord shows a prima facie case a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide is available to be drawn. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. 22. In Prativa Devi (Smt)v. T. V. Krishnan, 1996 (5)SCC353, this Court has held that in considering the availability of alternative accommodation, not availability merely but also whether the landlord has the legal right to such accommodation has to be considered. If the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself tightly into lesser premises protecting the tenants occupancy 23. In Rrgavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co., I (2000) SLT 211= 2000 (1) SCC 679 , it was held as follows: "It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter." 24. In Tilak Raj v. Krishan. In Rrgavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co., I (2000) SLT 211= 2000 (1) SCC 679 , it was held as follows: "It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter." 24. In Tilak Raj v. Krishan. Lal, 1982 RLR-Note 33 it was held that the married daughters keep on visiting their fathers home and are well entitled to some accommodation (guest room) and hence landlord was entitled to say that he wanted some accommodation for their use also. 25. In Rampratap Sharma v. Smt. Rukmani Devi, 82 (1999) DLT 878=2000 (1) RCR 209, it was held that the landlords requirement for separate Pooja room is bona fide requirement. In present day society landlord cannot be compelled to have a Pooja room in dining room or bed room. 26. In the case of Mis. Reflex International Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Rajinder Dev Chopra, passed in Rent Revision No. 33/2008 it was observed in para 10 as under: "10. It must be kept in mind that the underlying principles of rent restriction legislations is that there should be no exploitation of the tenants at the hands of the landlords. These restrictions, however, cannot be construed or interpreted so as to make the protection/conferred on the tenant as a source of torture and gross injustice to the landlord, who at the time of his bona fide needs is not even allowed to re-occupy his premises......" 27. I am of the view that though a legal notice has been sent by the respondent to the petitioner for increase of rent, it does not mean that respondent cannot file this petition for bona fide requirement. There exists a bona fide need of the respondent and he has no other alternate vacant residential accommodation available to him. There is no requirement in law that prior to filing of an eviction petition under Section 14(1)( e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the landlord should serve a notice on the tenant disclosing his bona fide requirement [Ref. T.B. Jain v. Savita Ravi, 2008(6) AD Delhi 103]. 28. Next question to be considered is when did the respondent purchased the property? 29. I find from the evidence of PW - 4 Sh. Tika Ram and PW -5 Sh. T.B. Jain v. Savita Ravi, 2008(6) AD Delhi 103]. 28. Next question to be considered is when did the respondent purchased the property? 29. I find from the evidence of PW - 4 Sh. Tika Ram and PW -5 Sh. Mahesh Chand Gupta and documents regarding sale of the property Exs. PW-1/B to PW-l/E, it is clear that property is purchased by the respondent from Sh. Munna Lal on 12th July, 1995 and the petition for eviction of the petitioner was filed in 2006. Moreover in para 2 of this petition, the petitioner himself admitted that he started paying rent to the respondent for the last 10 years. The plea of the petitioner that respondent cannot file eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act till five years from the date of acquisition of the property is rejected out rightly in view of the law laid down in Section 14(6). The learned ARC, gave a detailed order discussing all the basic ingredients under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It was observed by the learned ARC that the respondent is the landlord of the disputed property and is entitled to eviction petition. The respondent has proved this fact by filing the documents on record being Ex. PW 1/B to PW 1/E. 30. Section 14(6) of the Act provides as follows: "Sec. 14. Protection of tenant against eviction- xxx xxx xxx (6) Where a landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under Sub-section (1) on the ground specified in Clause (e) of the proviso thereto, unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date of the acquisition." 31. The accommodation available with the respondent is insufficient as against the total family members. I consider that in the case in hand, the landlord is able to prove his case on the record and on the evidence supported by him to evict the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) on bona fide requirement and is entitled to the eviction petition. The petitioner is directed to evict the premises of the respondent i.e. the disputed property from the expiry of period of six months from today. I find no infirmity with the order passed by ARC and the same is hereby confirmed. The petition dismissed. Petition dismissed.