M.L. Jain, J.
(1) The appellant, Shiv Charan, filed a petition against the respondent for his ejectment from a room and a kitchen occupied by him on a monthly rent of Rs. 10.30P. The appellant stated that he himself was formerly in occupation of a tenanted accommodation but he was made to vacate it. Since then, he was living in the present premises along with other members of his family thirteen in all which were. insufficient for their requirement. He, thereforee, needed the premises in dispute for the purpose of his own residence and the residence of the members of his family. The Rant Controller, Delhi by his order dated April 27, 1972, dismissed the petition because it was found that the requirement of the appellent was not bona fide. Since the family of the appellant was a joint family, the most natural course for him to adopt would be to seek vacant possession of the two rooms which were available in the very house in which the petitioner and his family were for the present living, but instead of doing so, he had come down on a old tenant of a room in another house which is far apart. The Rent Control Tribunal also dismissed his appeal. The learned Tribunal agreed with the Rent Controller and further commented that the premises in dispute consisted of only one room and a kitchen and it was not explained how the requirement of the appellant for additional accommodation would be satisfied by these premises. Thus, both the courts below have found, and correctly too, that the requirement of the appellant was not bonafide. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the courts below have erred on the point of law inasmuch as they ignored the position that the landlord cannot be compelled to choose particular premises and it is upon his sweet will to choose any of the premises which he would like to accupy. In support he cited an unreported decision of this Court in Krishan Kumar V. Vimla Sehgal, S.A.O. 86 of 1971, decided on April 4, 1975, in which this Court had reversed the finding of the lower Court as to bonafide requirement. But, that decision cannot be of much assistance in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in this respect, for example Mattulal v. Radhe lal 1975 RCJ 86, that the finding that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide or not is a finding of fact and does not involve any question of law, much less sub stantial. I, thereforee, find no force in this appeal, and it is hereby dismissed with costs.