ORDER
S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. No exception can indeed be taken to the finding of the appellate authority that the demised premises were bona fide required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation and the consequent order of ejectment passed against the tenant.
2. The demised premises consists of a room and a kitchen with premissive common use of the courtyard and bath room. The petitioner Hatinder Singh was inducted as a tenant in these premises on March 15, 1980.
3. The material on record shows that the accommodation with the landlord consists of two rooms on the ground floor and one on the first floor besides a miani and a Barsati. The family of the landlord consist of his wife lour daughters and a son. Two daughters were already married when the promises were let out to the tenant while the third was married during the pendency of these proceedings.
4. It is the case of the landlord that the accomnodation with him is insufficient for his needs As mentioned earlier, he now has living with him his wife and unmarried daughter and a grown up son. Considering the age of the children and the fact that they would now be in College, it is entirely reasonable on the part of the landlord to assert that they require separate rooms besides the accommodation that the landlord and his wife need. Another factor pressed in aid was the vista of the married daughters to the house of their parents. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, it clearly stands established that the accommodation available with the landlord is nod sufficient for his bona fides requirement.
5. ln dealing with this matter, the lower appellate court has observed that both the miani and Barsati could not be used for residential purpose. It was the contention of M. S Rakkar, counsel for the petitioner that this was not founded upon any evidence on record. Even if it be taken however, that these two rooms too could be used for residential purposes, it cannot advance the petitioner’s case as then too the accommodation would clearly be insufficient.
6. Keeping in view, therefore, the totality of the circumstances of the case in. the context of the material that has been brought on record, the impugned order of the appellate authority directing the ejectment of the petitioner clearly deserves to be upheld and affirmed. This revision petition is accordingly hereby dismissed. In the circumstances however, there will be no order as to costs.