JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. This Revision Petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 is directed against the order passed by learned Appellate Authority, whereby order passed by learned Rent Controller (VI), Shimla has been affirmed and the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the tenanted premises. Brief facts may be noticed. 2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as landlady) is the owner of premises House No. 83, Kashmiri Mohalla, The Mall, Shimla. The same were rented out to the petitioner (herein after referred to as tenant) for residential purpose, consisting of two rooms and a verandah. The eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground of additions and alterations unauthorisedly carried out by the petitioner in the demised premises and that the demised premises were required by the landlady for her personal bonafide requirement, as the accommodation in her possession was not sufficient to meet her and her family’s requirement. 3. The tenant resisted and contested the petition by filing reply, admitting that he was a tenant in the demised premises under the landlady. However, he denied both the grounds of eviction and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. On 21.11.1996 the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the premises is required by the petitioner for her bonafide requirement, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has made additions and alterations in the premises, if so its effect, as alleged? OPR 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner has concealed the material facts, if so its effect, as alleged? OPR 5. Relief.” 5. The learned Rent Controller after recording evidence and hearing the parties, ordered eviction of the petitioner/tenant only on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. The appeal preferred against the said decision was also dismissed, giving rising of the present petition. 6. Mr.O.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Naveen Kumar Dass, Advocate has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse, as they have not only ignored the oral and documentary evidence, but have also failed to take in to consideration that the pleadings of the landlady were in total variance to the evidence led by her. 7. Naveen Kumar Dass, Advocate has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse, as they have not only ignored the oral and documentary evidence, but have also failed to take in to consideration that the pleadings of the landlady were in total variance to the evidence led by her. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlady has vehemently argued that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below are not open to challenge in the present Revision Petition and therefore, the same should be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 8. At the outset, it may be pointed out that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is only required to satisfy itself as the legality and propriety of the order and would not normally interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below and would set aside the impugned order only in case the same is not legal or proper. 9. This Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is only entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or order, this Court shall not exercise its powers as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a Court of first appeal. This was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 wherein after discussing various provisions of rent laws in India, the following conclusion was arrived at:- “43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that findings of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according o law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 10. The learned counsel for the tenant has vehemently argued that once it has come on record that landlady’s both sons Deepak and Sanjay are employed and posted out of Shimla, the eviction cannot be sought on or for their behalf, as they do not intend to settle at Shimla. I am afraid that this contention cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the tenant has vehemently argued that once it has come on record that landlady’s both sons Deepak and Sanjay are employed and posted out of Shimla, the eviction cannot be sought on or for their behalf, as they do not intend to settle at Shimla. I am afraid that this contention cannot be accepted. No doubt, it has come on record that Deepak Sood is posted in Punjab National Bank at Panchkula, while Sanjay is posted as DFO at Chail and is occupying a Government house, but then it does not mean that the sons do not intend to settle at Shimla. The residence occupied by a person because of compulsion of ones vocation, in no manner can establish his intention to permanently reside at the place where he is posted. 11. Even on repeated query, the learned counsel for the tenant could not show from the record that either of the sons of landlady have even expressed their intention of residing elsewhere than in Shimla. Rather it has come on record that the son of Deepak Sood is studying in DAV School at Shimla. That apart, there is no evidence available on record to show that either of the sons of the landlady/respondent has acquired his own accommodation outside Shimla. Therefore, the requirement of landlady/respondent for suitable accommodation for her aforesaid sons at Shimla, where their other brothers also reside, cannot be doubted much less be held to be unreasonable. 12. It is more than settled that the reasonableness of accommodation has to be seen from the landlords prospective, because it is landlord alone who is the best judge of his/her requirement and suitability and the tenant cannot dictate to him manner in which he should live (Deep Chandra Juneja Vs. Lajwanti Kathuria (dead) through LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 497 and A.K. Jain Vs. Prem Kapoor (2008) 8 SCC 593 ). 13. Learned counsel for the tenant after placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Som Nath Vs. Gian Chand, 2010 (3) SLC 355 would still contend that since the findings recorded by the learned Courts below were perverse, therefore, they have become vulnerable and are then open to challenge in the present Revision Petition. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the tenant after placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Som Nath Vs. Gian Chand, 2010 (3) SLC 355 would still contend that since the findings recorded by the learned Courts below were perverse, therefore, they have become vulnerable and are then open to challenge in the present Revision Petition. 14. I am afraid that the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is not at all attracted to the facts of the present case, as the Court in Som Nath’s case came to a categoric finding that the authorities had wrongly decided two issues regarding bonafide need and material impairment against the tenant by not properly appreciating the pleadings and evidence. This is not the position in the present case. 15. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below can be said to be perverse only after it is shown that such findings are not supported by any evidence adduced by the parties or not reasonably proved or no authority could have come to those findings on the basis of that evidence. A finding of fact recorded by the Court is perverse when it has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such findings are based on no evidence or misreading of evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice. This is not the fact situation obtaining in the present case. The learned Courts below have not only taken into consideration the pleadings of the respective parties, but they also correctly evaluated the evidence adduced in support thereof. It is only thereafter that the Courts below have come to a categoric finding that the respondent has been able to prove and establish on record her bonafide requirement. 16. The learned counsel for the tenant would further argue that the respondent is also having accommodation at other places like Subji Mandi, which clearly belies the claim and bonafides of the respondent. It has already been observed by me earlier and is again being reiterated that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. Suitability has to be seen for convenience of landlord and his family members and on the basis of circumstances including their profession, vocation, stiles of living, habit and background. 17. Suitability has to be seen for convenience of landlord and his family members and on the basis of circumstances including their profession, vocation, stiles of living, habit and background. 17. Though the term “bonafide requirement” has not been defined in the Act, but in Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. M/s Chaganlal Sundarji & Company, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enumerated the following guidelines:- “(i) The requirement of the landlord must be both reasonable and bonafide. (ii) The word ‘reasonable’ in our view, connotes that the requirement is not fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be a mere desire. (iii) The word requirement coupled with the word reasonable means that it must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. (iv) A reasonable and bonafide requirement is something in between a mere desire or wish on one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity at the other hand. It may be a need in presenti or within reasonable proximity in the future. (v) The word ‘bonafide’ means that the need must be honest and not to be tented with tainted with any oblique motive. (vi) Language of the provision cannot be unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible for the landlord to get possession. Construction of the relevant statutory provisions must strike a balance between the rights of landlord and rights of tenant. (vii) Court shall not proceed on assumption that the requirement of landlord was not bonafide and that the tenant could not dictate to the landlord as to how he should adjust himself without getting possession of the tenant premises.” 18. The bonafide requirement of the landlord depends on facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be a straitjacket formula. The burden lies upon the landlord to establish that the accommodation is bonafidely required by her for her and her families use. While adjudicating whether the requirement is bonafide or not, it is only to be seen objectively and not subjectively by the Court, though the landlord is the best judge of his requirement. 19. When this case is tested on the aforesaid parameters and principles, it is more than clear that it is not a mere wish or desire of the landlady to evict her tenant, but it is her bonafide requirement that has driven her to the Court. 19. When this case is tested on the aforesaid parameters and principles, it is more than clear that it is not a mere wish or desire of the landlady to evict her tenant, but it is her bonafide requirement that has driven her to the Court. The landlady has three sons, who inturn have their own families including grown up children. Obviously, these families would be having friends and relatives, but unfortunately no space to accommodate them. No doubt, merely to accommodate the needs of the visiting guests and the family members who occasionally visit the tenanted premises cannot be a deciding factor that the tenant should be turned out, but here is a case where the landlady herself is possessed of only two rooms set, while she is having three married sons, who inturn now have grown up children and therefore, by no stretch of imagination can the said accommodation be held to be sufficient to meet the requirement of the landlady. 20. Learned Courts below have recorded concurrent findings and ordered eviction. Exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Act, this Court would not interfere with and reverse the conclusions concurrently reached by the Courts below. The landlady has established her bonafide requirement of the premises. Accordingly, the order of eviction passed by the learned Courts below is affirmed. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.