M.L. Jain, J.
(1) Om Parkash filed a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement and acquisition by the tenants of some other premises. The second ground was not proved and is no more a matter in controversy. It was alleged by the landlord that the premises in dispute were let out to Banarsi Dass for residential purposes. Banarsi Dass appears to have died in 1965 end is survived by his widow, four sons and three daughters. It was claimed that the premises were required for the residence of the owner himself and ten members of his family. The family comprised himself, wife, aged grand-father, retired father mother, school going one son and two daughters and college, going one son and one daughter. They live with him .and were dependent on him. He had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The learned Additional Rent Controller allowed the petition and directed eviction. The Rent Control Tribunal by its judgment dated December 13, 1978, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.
(2) It was urged in this appeal by the learned for the appellants that the question of law that required consideration by this court is that the courts below have failed to notice that there is no evidence that the parents are dependent upon the petitioner. They have a house in Ambala. If the parents are excluded, then there is no requirement of the premises by the landlord. The appellants have also made an application under order Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code . for leading additional evidence. They contend in the application that the landlord came with the case that he, his wife, two sons and three daughters are residing on the first floor of the house and that his grant-father and parents were also residing with him and thereforee the accommodation in in his possession was not sufficient for his requirement, but during the pendency of the litigation, the landlord O. P. Gupta, who is a Parcels Supervisor in the Railways, was transferred from Delhi to Kalka and now to Saharanpur where he has rented a house and has taken his wife along with him. The grandfather is dead and the parents are living in Ambala. One of the daughters has married. The eldest son Satish Kumar Gupta has started a factory in Gurgaon and is residing there. The accommodation in possession of the respondent comprise three rooms on the first floor and one big room on the second floor and in view of the events that have overtaken since the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal there is no case of insufficiency of the present accommodation in the occupation of the respondent. The respondent has admitted the facts of the death of his grand-father and his own transfer. He asserted that in spite of bids transfer his wife, two sons and two unmarried daughters along with his parents are residing in the first floor. The son who has started a factory in Gurgaon also resides in Delhi. In Saharanpur he is sharing accommodation with a friend. It is his younger brother who lives in Ambala and his parents go some time to visit him and reside there only for a few days. He has maintained that his requirement for more accommodation continues to be there as before.
(3) Now, the accommodation in possession of the landlord apparently consists of two rooms, one store and kitchen-cum-bath on the first floor and a Barsati on the second floor. But, it was contended on be-half of the appellant that in fact there were three rooms on the ground floor but two rooms of the size of 8' 4'/x 6'7' and 8' 4' x 12' 0' were converted into one room of the size of 8' 4' x 18'7'. However the area in occupation remuins the same. The courts below have found that the said accommodation falls short of the bona fide requirement of the landlord and his family The landlord is even entitled to have a room for each member of the family, vide Krishan Kumar v. Vimla Sehgal, 1976 R.C.R. 249. Father and mother who live or want to live with the son cannot be excluded and the married daugher also often comes to visit her parents and her convenience has to be taken into consideration. In spite of his transfer, the landlord has not shifted his family and the elder son who his set up the factory also depends upon him for residence in Delhi Many residends of Delhi have factories, in Gurgaon. There is no doubt no finding as to whether the members of the family are economically dependant or dependent for residence on the landlord. But the order of eviction cannot be set aside on that ground alone. Firstly, the finding that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord are findings of fact and they cannot be challenged in the second appeal Secondly, the applicant said in his application that the members were dependant on him. He also deposed that all of them lived with him. That proves his case. Moreover, as held in T. C. Rekhi v. Smt. Usha Gujral, 1971 R.C.J. 322, the word 'himself occurring in sec. 14(1) proviso (e) includes those who arc normally living with the landlord. The requirement of 'himself, means the requirement of members of his family also. It has also been the view of this court that in the circumstances of the society in which we live, the word 'dependent' has to be construed as to include persons who are not only econocally dependant but also those who depend for their residence upon the landlord. Out of the members mentioned at the time when the petition was filed, only grand-father is dead. That should not make any appreciable difference. It has also been settled by this court that the requirement of the married daughter visiting her parents also forms part of the landlord's bona fide requirement, vide Ratan Lal vs. Jindhu Ram, 1975 R. L. R. 1. The-son who has set up (he factory need not necessarily live in Gurgaon and does live with the father. Moreover, if the requirement of the married daughter is held to be genuine, then the requirement for the son visiting the father should be considered all the more genuine. thereforee, I do not find that any additional evidence is going to effect the findings arrived at by the courts below. The application for leading additional evidence is thereforee, rejected.
(4) The premises in question were purchased by the petitioner in 1968 and the family has been living on the first floor. The petitioner has one more house in Green Park but that is a small one and had been led out long before the disputed house was purchased. The courts below were correct in holding that the petitioner had no other reasonably suitable accommodation available to him. It is the (choice of the landlord to evict the tenant from the premises which he considers more convenient out of the several he has. see Maiiohar Lal v. Mool Chand, 1976 R.C.R. 236.
(5) No question of law which does not already stand settled by this court arises in this appeal and thereforee, I find no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
--- *** ---