JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The petitioner herein/tenant, in the demised premises, being aggrieved by concurrently recorded orders, pronounced for his eviction, therefrom, has instituted the instant revision petition before this Court, whereby, he makes a concert to beget their reversal. 2. The landlord instituted Rent Petition No. 02/2004, for, seeking an order of eviction being pronounced upon the tenant, on the trite grounds, (a) of, it being bona-fide required for his personal use and his family members, comprising his wife, son and daughter-in- law and married daughters; (b) conspicuously, upon, his daughters making occasional visits to his home, the accommodation extantly available with him, being insufficient to house them, with consequent effects of his facing an acute embarrassment; (c) Apart therefrom the accommodation, yet available, with the petitioner comprising of one room and a covered veranda, being incommodious, to, along with him and his wife, hence, house the family members of his married son. 3. The tenant/petitioner herein resisted the claim of the landlord by his furnishing a reply thereto, wherein he contended, of, there being sufficient accommodation, in the building wherein the demised premises is located, for, housing, the petitioner and his family members. He has also contended therein, of, the petitioner departing from the premises located within the municipal limits of Lohali and his permanently shifting to village Jhikkar. 4. On the contentious espousals reared by the landlord in his petition and by the respondent in his reply furnished thereto, the learned Rent Controller concerned framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the premises in question is required by the petitioner for bona-fide use, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether petition in the present form is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR. 3. Whether petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR 4. Whether petition is barred by principle of res judicata as alleged? OPR. 5. Whether the petition is barred under Order 2, Rule 2, CPC, as alleged? OPR. 6. Whether petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition, as alleged? OPR. 7. Relief. 5. Upon appraisal of evidence adduced before the learned Rent Controller concerned, by the contesting parties, he proceeded to order for eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. OPR. 5. Whether the petition is barred under Order 2, Rule 2, CPC, as alleged? OPR. 6. Whether petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition, as alleged? OPR. 7. Relief. 5. Upon appraisal of evidence adduced before the learned Rent Controller concerned, by the contesting parties, he proceeded to order for eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. The tenant being aggrieved therefrom, instituted an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, whereupon, the latter proceeded, to affirm the order of eviction pronounced, by the learned Rent Controller, upon, the landlord's petition, for eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. The tenant being aggrieved therefrom, concerts to assail it before this Court. 6. It is also pertinent to mention here, of, the tenant earlier also approaching, this Court by instituting Civil Revision No.150 of 2006, against the concurrently recorded orders, pronounced by both the learned Courts below, for his eviction from the demised premises. During, the pendency of the aforesaid civil revision before this Court, the tenant instituted CMP Nos. 279 and CMP No. 15033 of 2013, seeking permission to place on record, events supervening vis-a-vis the pendency of the aforesaid civil revision, (a) another tenant in the building wherein the demised premises are also located, namely, one Vijay Deep Singh, subsequent to the concurrently recorded renditions, upon, the apposite petition, by both the learned Courts below, hence, vacating two rooms set, under his occupation and (b) one Raj Kumar Mehra also during the pendency of Civil Revision Petition No. 150 of 2006, vacating the premises occupied by him, premises whereof also occur in the very same building, wherein, the demised premises exist. This Court while relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case titled, as Kedar Nath Aggarwal (dead) and another v. Dhanraji Devi (dead) by LRs and another, (2004)8 SCC, 76, with expostulations therein, of, permissibility of Courts, bearing in mind events, supervening vis-a-vis the apposite verdict being recorded by both the learned Courts below, hence, proceeded to accept the afore referred averments, borne, in the aforestated CMPs AND it proceeded, to hence accept C.R. bearing No. 150 of 2006 AND pronounced a direction of its remand, vis-a-vis the Rent Controller concerned, for his hence making a fresh decision upon the apposite rent petition. 7. 7. On the Rent Controller concerned, hence receiving, the lis on remand from this Court, proceeded, to, on 30.06.2016, order for the eviction of the tenant, from, the demised premises. The tenant being aggrieved therefrom, instituted an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, the latter proceeded to dismiss the apposite appeal and declined relief to the tenant, rather affirmed the pronouncement recorded by the learned Rent Controller. Consequently, the tenant, concerts to assail the concurrently recorded orders, of, his eviction from the demised premises, by his instituting the instant petition before this Court. 8. The imperative fact, of, the landlord/respondent herein, prior, to his instituting the instant rent petition, his instituting rent petition No. 7 of 1999, before the learned Rent Controller concerned, (i) whereupon the espoused relief, therein, was declined to him AND (ii) thereafter, upon, his rearing therefrom an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, (iii) during, pendency whereof, upon, his counsel making a statement there before of, his intending, to, withdraw, the rent petition, for enabling him to include therein, causes of action, emerging besides accruing, subsequent thereto, (iv) whereupon, the learned Appellate Authority, proceeded to dismiss the apposite appeal, as withdrawn, (v) necessarily has a bearing, upon, the applicability thereon, of the mandate, of Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim.- (1) At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim. PROVIDED that where the plaintiff is a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in rules to 14 of Order XXXII extend, neither the suit nor any part of the claim shall be abandoned Without the leave of the court. (2) An application for leave under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend and also, if the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of the pleader to the effect that the abandonment proposed is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor or such other person. (3) Where the court is satisfied,— (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of a suit or part of a claim, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suit or such part of the claim. (4) Where the plaintiff,— (a) abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1), or (b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3), he shall be liable for such costs as the court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter or such part of the claim. (5) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to authorise the court to permit one of several plaintiffs to abandon a suit or part of a claim under sub-rule (1), or to withdraw, under sub-rule (3), any suit or part of a claim, without the consent of the other plaintiffs. 9. The learned counsel appearing, for the tenant/petitioner herein has contended, that the hereinafter extracted apposite order:- “Shri Gupta has stated in writing that he does not want to pursue this appeal as he would file a new rent petition on the fresh cause of action which has already accrued to him. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The record of the learned trial court alongwith an attested copy of this order be sent back forthwith. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The record of the learned trial court alongwith an attested copy of this order be sent back forthwith. The appeal record be consigned to he record room after its due completion.” order whereof is borne in Ex.R-2, upon, its reading making a clear display, of it, comprising an order of simplicitor dismissal, of, the apposite appeal as withdrawn AND with its reading obviously, not, making any visible disclosures, (a) of explicit permission being granted, to the landlord to institute a fresh petition, (b) thereupon, with the landlord being barred to institute a fresh rent petition, subsequent to simplicitor dismissal, as withdrawn, of his previous petition, (c) hence want of explicit grant, of permission by the learned Appellate Authority vis-a-vis the landlord, to, thereafter institute a fresh petition vis-a-vis causes of action, emerging/accruing, subsequent, to the institution of the prior eviction petition, jurisdictionally disempowering the Courts below, to record an affirmative pronouncement upon the landlord's petition, for, eviction of the tenant, from the demised premises. 10. The aforesaid submission, is, on its façade extremely attractive also when despite accrual of subsequent causes, of, action vis-a-vis the landlord, he could without seeking, from, the learned Appellate Authority, the apposite permission, for withdrawal of the previous rent petition, hence proceed to incorporate them in the extant petition, especially through, appropriate applications, for amendment in pleadings, hence being constituted there-before. Nonetheless, the effects of all the aforesaid omissions of the landlord are blunted by (a) a reading of the order, comprised in Ex. R- 2, making a vivid display, of the learned Appellate Authority while proceeding, to purportedly make a simplicitor order, of, dismissing the previous petition, as withdrawn; (b) it also bearing in mind, the statement made there-before by the counsel for the landlord, qua, (c) given accruals of fresh causes of action, especially, during, the pendency of the earlier rent petition, the landlord intending, to file afresh rent petition for his being enabled to include them therein. The conclusion erected, by this Court of the statement, made by the counsel, for the appellant/landlord, being borne in mind, by the learned Appellate Authority, while proceeding to make the apposite order, of dismissing as withdrawn, the previous rent petition, is comprised, (d) in the existence of the word “therefore” in the sentence occurring subsequent, to the preceding sentence existing in Ex. R-2, in preceding sentence whereof, is borne, the apposite statement made there-before by the counsel, for the landlord. The word “therefore”, existing in the sentence subsequent, to, the sentence preceding thereto, (e) obviously opens an inference, of the aforesaid echoing occurring therein, being borne in mind, by the learned Appellate Authority, upon, its proceeding to make an order of dismissing the previous petition, as withdrawn. The purported simplicitor order hence dismissing, as withdrawn, the previous rent petition, is, (f) thereupon not construable to be a simplicitor order of dismissal as withdrawn, of the earlier rent petition, with a concomitant attraction thereon, of, the statutory bar against its reinstitution, (g) rather is construable to carry the apt connotation of, it also permitting the landlord, to incorporate freshly accruing causes of action, in the subsequently instituted rent petition, besides hence relaxes the rigor of the statutory bar against the reinstitution, of an earlier rent petition. The aforesaid manner of reading of the apposite order, hence, blunts the vigour of the espousals addressed there-before by the counsel for the tenant/petitioner herein. Accelerated vigour, to, the aforesaid inference is garnered, by the factum of the counsel for the tenant, during, the pendency of C.R. No. 150 of 2006, not palpably in tandem with the aforesaid espousals, making any address before this Court, thereupon, it is concluded, of, the aforesaid espousal being mechanically raised before this court, rendering it to be bereft of any legal strength. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended with much vehemence, before this Court, of, with the landlord in his affidavit, borne in Ex.PW3/A, making echoings, of one Vijay Deep Singh, a co-tenant in the relevant building wherein also exist the demised premises, vacating two rooms set, (i) thereupon, it being sufficient, for meteing the needs of accommodation for the married son of the landlord, (ii) hence, the aforesaid evidence, belittling the genuineness or bona-fides of the landlord, to seek eviction of the tenant, on the purported ground, of, his bona-fide requiring the demised premises, for housing the married son of the landlord and his family members. He also contends, while alluding to the deposition, of, the landlord, borne in his cross-examination, wherein an echoing occurs, of, his inducting one Raj Kumar Mehra, as a lessee, in a portion of the building wherein the demised premises also exist, (iii) induction whereof occurring in the year 1997 and the relevant longevity of the apposite lease deed, executed, inter se the landlord and one Raj Kumar Mehra, nowat expired, (iv) carrying the consequent effect of the premises, under, the occupation of one Rajkumar Mehra, being nowat available, for meteing all the needs, for, accommodation of the landlord, (v) thereupon, he contends, of, the purported bona-fides of the landlord, for his claiming the eviction of the tenant, from, the demised premises, being hence torpedoed. 12. Even though, one Vijay Deep Singh, the tenant in the building, wherein the demised premises also exist, has vacated the premises under his occupation as a tenant, under the landlord, also when there is a clear display, in Ex.PW3/A, of, the landlord's son and his family members occupying it, (i) yet per se, thereupon, it cannot oust the claim of the landlord, to reclaim the demised premises, from, the tenant, as apart from, the extantly insufficient accommodation available with him, for housing his son, he has also averred in his petition besides in consonance therewith rendered a testification, of, his married daughters making regular visits upon him, whereas, his facing acute shortage of accommodation, to house his married daughters and their family members, thereupon, his facing an acute embarrassment. Consequently, the merit of the aforesaid averments and the testification’s rendered in consonance therewith, by the landlord is also to be adjudicated, more so, especially in the context, of, an admission occurring in the cross-examination of the landlord, of, a lease deed executed in the year 1997 inter se him with one Raj Kumar Mehra, surviving upto 10 years, whereupon, the counsel for the tenant has erected, an argument of per se, thereupon, the premises hitherto under occupation, of Raj Kumar Mehra, being sufficient, to make good the extant shortages of accommodations, besetting the landlord, for his hence meteing, the needs, of housing his married daughters and their family members, upon, theirs making visit upon him. 13. 13. The aforesaid contention reared by the learned counsel for the tenant, would carry much worth, in case it is proved by cogent evidence, on record, of the legal heirs of Raj Kumar Mehra, the lessee, upon occurrence of the latter's demise, hence, vacating the relevant premises. The aforesaid evidence is amiss nor any evidence has been adduced, through, any Local Commissioner appointed, by the learned Rent Controller, for, (i) belying the echoings made by the landlord, in Ex.PW3/A, of, the legal heirs of Raj Kumar Mehra, yet holding possession, of, the premises leased vis-a-vis one Raj Kumar Mehra, (ii) also no evidence hence emanates, for, belying the echoing’s made by the landlord, in Ex.PW3/A, of the lock and key, of the premises hitherto occupied, by one deceased Raj Kumar Mehra, being nowat possessed by his legal heirs. Sequel thereof, is, that with the landlord rearing a contention in his eviction petition of, upon his married daughters and their family members making visits upon him, his facing an acute shortage of, accommodation for housing them, appears to be genuine, honest and sincere, (iv) especially when no evidence pronouncing, upon, any acrimony existing inter se the landlord and his married daughters is forth coming, whereupon, they stand dissuaded to visit their parental house, (iv) besides when the married daughters, of the landlord are expected to ritualistically visit the latter, his being their father, at the place where he resides also given insufficiency of the extantly available accommodation with him, (v) thereupon, he is his obviously beset with acuteness of accommodation, to, alongwith him hence house them, concomitantly, when he also is hence faced with an acute embarrassment, (vi) thereupon, the ground, of, his bona-fide requiring the demised premises, for, his being enabled, to, upon his married daughters and their family members visiting him, house them, appears to be imbued with a virtue of sincerity, honesty and genuineness, bereft of any malafides. Even when this Court has affirmed the impugned verdict, the learned Appellate Authority is directed to ensure that in future, to, improve logic and reasons also to be cohesive. 14. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition and it is dismissed accordingly. The orders impugned here at are affirmed and maintained. No costs. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.