JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Respondent had filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question. 2. Case of the respondent, in brief, was that she was presently residing in England and the petitioner-tenant was liable to be evicted as the premises in question was required by her for her own use and occupation. Children of respondent were settled in England. Respondent or her family members or her children had to visit to India once or twice in a year to meet their relatives and the respondent required the premises in question for her personal use. 3. Petitioner, in his written statement, averred that the first floor of the premises in question had been got vacated by the respondent and the same could be used by the respondent for herself and her family members. Respondent did not require the ground floor, which was in possession of the petitioner, for her personal use and occupation. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller. 1. Whether the premises in dispute has been required by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation and personal necessity ? OPP 2. Whether the petition is maintainable? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner has filed the petition without any cause of action ? OPR 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary party? OPR 5. Relief. 5. Parties led their evidence in support of their case. 6. Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 11.7.2013 allowed the ejectment petition and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.12.2013. Hence the present petition by the petitioner-tenant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the ejectment petition, first floor of the premises in question had been vacated. Therefore, there was no bona fide need available to the landlady to get the ground floor vacated. The personal need alleged by the landlady could not be described as bona fide. 8. In the present case, the landlady-respondent appeared in the witness box and deposed as per the contents of her ejectment petition. Therefore, there was no bona fide need available to the landlady to get the ground floor vacated. The personal need alleged by the landlady could not be described as bona fide. 8. In the present case, the landlady-respondent appeared in the witness box and deposed as per the contents of her ejectment petition. During the pendency of the petition, first floor of the premises in question was vacated by the tenant and came in possession of the respondent. The landlady deposed that the said accommodation was not sufficient for her and her family members. In fact, she wanted to reconstruct two rooms as it was old construction. It is settled proposition of law that the landlord is the best judge qua his needs. The landlady has specifically deposed that she required the premises in question for her personal use. There is no occasion to doubt her testimony. Moreover, it is for the landlady to decide as to whether she wants to keep the ground floor as well as the first floor for her own personal use and occupation. Merely because the first floor of the premises in question has been vacated by the tenant, is no ground to hold that the ground floor of the premises in question was not required by the landlady for her personal use. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Courts below had rightly allowed the ejectment petition filed by the respondent on the ground of personal necessity. 9. No ground for interference is made out. 10. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------