JUDGMENT B.N. Karia, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with an Order dated 30th April 2018 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2017 confirming the verdict rendered by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Wadhwan in Regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 2003 passed on 20th March 2017, revisionist-Ranjit Govind Dabhi, who was original defendant no. 2, has approached this Court in revision preferred under Section 29 [2] of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ["Rent Act" for short]. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, it is imminent to set out the facts infra in detail; including background facts, which led to filing of this appeal. 3. Respondent no.1 herein is the original plaintiff. She is a landlady of a residential house comprising of two rooms on the first floor and kitchen; one room and gallery on the ground floor, situated near Vagheshwari Mandi, Wadhwan [hereinafter to be referred to as, "the suit property"]. The suit property originally belongs to her father-Shri Vajeshanker Ambeshanker, who rented part of the same, comprising two rooms on the 1st Floor and a little space near the stair case to Shri Govindbhai Harjibhai Dabhi [since deceased] during his life time, on monthly rental of Rs. 50/-, by creating a restricted right of tenancy in the suit property, thereby leaving rest of the area on the ground floor consisting of one room, gallery and kitchen for self use. 4. The original plaintiff, after her retiring from the services as a Teacher, when want to live in her native place and desired to use the untenanted area of the suit property, came to know that the kitchen area and gallery has been encroached upon by the defendants, and hence, on the ground of personal bona fide use and occupation, recovery of usage charges, arrears of rent from 15th March 1975 till the vacant possession of the suit property is handed over, the original plaintiff-landlady; after issuing statutory notice to the original defendants, instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 2003 before the Civil Court at Wadhwan. 5. The learned Additional Civil Judge, Wadhwan, after issuing summons upon the defendants, taking into consideration written statements filed by them vide Exh. 5. The learned Additional Civil Judge, Wadhwan, after issuing summons upon the defendants, taking into consideration written statements filed by them vide Exh. 7; evidence led by the respective parties both documentary as well as oral; framing and answering the issues point-wise and after considering arguments advanced on behalf of respective sides, allowed the suit with consequential reliefs; as stated in the order dated 20th March 2017. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, original defendants [including the present appellant] moved the District Court, Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.11 of 2017 challenging the eviction decree, inter alia, on a plea that the entire suit property; except one room on the ground floor, rest of the suit property was rented to the defendants, and hence, burden lies on the original plaintiff to prove that her father had rented only two rooms on the 1st Floor of the suit premises. 7. The learned Appellate Judge, after giving opportunity to both the sides; framing points for determination and considering the material available with the Court, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 2003, giving rise to the present proceedings at the behest of original defendant no. 2 alone. 8. Assailing the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, counsel for the revisionist vehemently contended that both the Courts below have clearly erred in recognizing the fact that the original defendant no. 2 is residing in the suit premises with his entire family comprising of four members on meager source of his income derived from daily wages. Counsel contended that the landlady draw pension and usually resides with her son at Ahmedabad, and therefore, the Courts below ought to have considered the aspect that if eviction decree is passed against the original defendant no. 2 [appellant herein], the same would result into greater hardship than to the original plaintiff. Counsel further contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the requirement of premises; as alleged by the plaintiff, being no genuine or bona fide, the Courts ought not to have passed decree of eviction under Section 13 [1] [G] of the Rent Act. Counsel further contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the requirement of premises; as alleged by the plaintiff, being no genuine or bona fide, the Courts ought not to have passed decree of eviction under Section 13 [1] [G] of the Rent Act. Counsel added that the trial Court has erred in holding that the landlady required suit property for bona fide purpose, however, in fact, the plaintiff is residing with her son elsewhere and only with a view to get eviction decree, alleged requirement has been created. 9. Ultimately, counsel for the revisionist urged the Court to allow this revision by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 30th April 2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2017 and judgment and decree dated 20th March 2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Wadhwan in Regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 2017. 10. To substantiate his arguments, counsel for the revisionist placed reliance upon decisions in the cases of [a] Kuvarben Dungarbhai Solanki (Died) vs. Premjibhai Motibhai [Civil Revision Application No. 170/2011 : Decided on 2nd September 2013]; Champaben Jethalal vs. Rajendra Nanalal Jabanpura [Civil Revision Application No. 274 of 2006 : Decided on 5th October 2012]; Ratilal Motiram vs. Nathubhai Jethabhai reported in, (1971) GLR 127; Niruben Wd/o. Jyotindrabhai Ramniklal Yagnik & Anr. vs. Kirtikumar Ramanlal Raval & Ors. reported in, (1991) 1 GLH 450 . 11. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for and on behalf of the respondent no.1-original plaintiff vehemently contended that the suit property was originally rented to late Shri Govindbhai Dabhi, who passed away in the year 1988, and thereafter, none of the heirs of original tenant declared to the landlady as to who would be the tenant in the suit premises, as the original defendant no.1-Gangaben Dabhi also passed away during pendency of the suit proceedings. Counsel contended that even the original defendants no. 2 to 6 have laid no evidence to the fact that they were living with their parents prior to death of original tenant-Late Shri Govindbhai Dabhi. 12. Drawing attention of this Court to the deposition of defendants no. 2 & 3 at Exhs. 53 & 88 respectively, counsel for the respondent-landlady contended that the defendant no. 2 to 6 have laid no evidence to the fact that they were living with their parents prior to death of original tenant-Late Shri Govindbhai Dabhi. 12. Drawing attention of this Court to the deposition of defendants no. 2 & 3 at Exhs. 53 & 88 respectively, counsel for the respondent-landlady contended that the defendant no. 2 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted of his owning a separate residential house and further stated that the defendant no. 3-Bahadurbhai Govindbhai Dabhi is living out of station since long and thereby the said defendant had also confirmed Ajitbhai and Hemubhai [original defendants no. 4 & 5 respectively] living separately with their families. Thus, as per own evidence of defendants, it has been clearly established that all the sons of original tenant-Late Govindbhai Dabhi were living separately. To substantiate his version, counsel for the original plaintiff drew attention of this Court to the cross examination of an independent witness-Jignaben Hemchandra Dave [Exh. 71] to contend that even this witness has categorically admitted that defendant no.1 [i.e., deceased Gangaben, wd/o. Govindbhai Dabhi original tenant] was living with her sons turn-wise and all her five sons were living separately. Thus, when the record clearly suggests that none of the heirs of original tenant were living in the suit premises, and in fact, they were residing separately and have alternative accommodation and she being the owner of suit property, having bona fide and reasonable requirement, this revision moved at the instance of original defendant no. 2 deserves to be dismissed with costs. 13. Substantiating his arguments, counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in the case of Smt. Prativa Devi vs. T.V. Krishnan reported in, (1996) 5 SCC 353 ; in case of Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar [Mrs.] vs. Traders & Agencies & Anr. reported in, (1996) 5 SCC 344 . He also sought to place reliance upon decision of this Court in the case between Rajan Ratilal Patel vs. Madhuriben Ramendrabhai Desai reported in, (1998) 1 GLH 449 . 14. Having heard learned advocates for the respective sides and considering the material available on the record i.e., paper book containing documents, deposition before the trial Court, it is not in dispute that the suit premises was rented to the father of the present applicant by the deceased father of the respondent-landlord during his life time. 14. Having heard learned advocates for the respective sides and considering the material available on the record i.e., paper book containing documents, deposition before the trial Court, it is not in dispute that the suit premises was rented to the father of the present applicant by the deceased father of the respondent-landlord during his life time. It is also not in dispute that substantial amount of rent was outstanding prior to institution of suit by the respondent before the Civil Court. It is equally not in dispute that four of the sons of the deceased tenant-Govindbhai Dabhi are living separately with their respective families and only original defendant No. 2 is in occupation of the said premises. Equally uncontroversial position is that inspite of respondent-landlord having repeatedly made request to the org. defendants for making her house available, as she intend to pass evening of her life in her own house in her native town, they have been prolonging litigation, particularly when the requirement of premises for settling on retirement from service as a teacher by itself is a reasonable and bona fide. This compels the Court to compare hardship of a landlady vis-a-vis hardship faced by a tenant from the view point of comparative hardship propounded under Section 13 [2] of the Rent Act. True it is, each party to the proceedings is required to show what hardship would be caused to him/her by granting or refusing of the decree, nevertheless, it would be rather unfair to ask the landlady to occupy a rented premises, when her own premises is readily available. In the instant case, the plaintiff has clearly proved her hardship, and on the other hand, the original defendant-tenant; more particularly the revisionist herein, have not led any evidence to show that he made any effort for purchase or construction of his own house. 15. For better appreciation, I think it condign to draw reference from the authorities relied upon by the respective sides during the course of argument. 16. In the judgment rendered in the case between Smt. Parvati Devi vs. T.V. Krishnan, (2006) 5 SCC 353 [Supra], the Apex Court, while answering the issue as to the bona fide requirement of landlord for her own residential use, held and observed that, "..the landlord is best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. In the judgment rendered in the case between Smt. Parvati Devi vs. T.V. Krishnan, (2006) 5 SCC 353 [Supra], the Apex Court, while answering the issue as to the bona fide requirement of landlord for her own residential use, held and observed that, "..the landlord is best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own." The Court further went on to observed that, ".. there is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property." 17. Here also, the original plaintiff is a retired teacher, who wish to settle in her own house at the evening of her life. Therefore, when before both the Courts below, respondent-original plaintiff had established her bona fide requirement of the demised premises, she cannot be denied freedom of enjoying her own property. 18. In a decision rendered in the case of Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar [Supra], appellant-landlady was owner of the demised flat and she or her husband were not owning any other house/flat in the city. Though, in the said case, the appellant's husband was a tenant of another flat, but he had left it long back and since then, it remained in possession of his brother's family and was not sufficient to accommodate the appellant and her family, and therefore, that fact was not considered necessary by her to be disclosed initially before the Court of first instance. On facts, appellant proved her case of bona fide requirement and the trial Court was right in passing eviction decree in her favour. 19. Here also, original plaintiff - a landlady desires to occupy her own property and therefore, both the Courts below, after due consideration of every aspect of the matter, rightly acceded her request and thereby decreed the suit on the ground that she requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for her personal occupation. 20. 19. Here also, original plaintiff - a landlady desires to occupy her own property and therefore, both the Courts below, after due consideration of every aspect of the matter, rightly acceded her request and thereby decreed the suit on the ground that she requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for her personal occupation. 20. The learned Single Judge of this Court in a decision rendered in the case of Rajan Ratilal Patel vs. Madhuriben Ramendrabhai Desai [Supra] has held that, ..The question of comparative hardship under Section 13 [1] of the Bombay Rent Act, the Court is not only required to consider the situation from the viewpoint of the tenant alone, but also to consider the situation from the viewpoint of the landlord. Each party is required to show what hardship would be caused to him by granting or refusal of the decree. It would be unfair to ask a man to occupy rented premises when his own premises are available." Here also, both the Courts below by well-reasoned judgments have decreed the suit in favour of the original plaintiff considering the prima facie hardship suffered by her, particularly when she want to settle in her own house and at her native place. On the other hand, the revisionists-original defendant no.2 has not led sufficient evidence to show that he made efforts for purchase or construction of his own house. 21. In view of discussion mad hereinabove, this Court is of the firm opinion that the finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below, based on oral and documentary evidence, supported by cogent and convincing reasons, does not in any way call for interference by this Court in exercise of powers vested under Section 29 [2] of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 22. Resultantly, since there being no merit in this application, the same fails and stand rejected. Rule nisi discharged with no order as to the costs. The impugned decree shall be executed forthwith as per the law.