Bona fide requirement under rent control fails without proof of no other suitable accommodation; subletting allegation also rejected.

Eviction under rent control law was rejected on both pleaded grounds. On alleged subletting, assignment, or parting with possession, the courts treated the issue as one of fact, found no proof of unauthorized transfer of possession, and the revision court declined interference because no legal error or misapplication of the governing test was shown. On personal requirement, the landlord had to prove both bona fide need and absence of other suitable accommodation; the courts found sufficient alternative accommodation, so the statutory condition was not met and eviction failed. Concurrent factual findings on these issues were therefore left undisturbed in revision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent had sublet, assigned, or otherwise parted with possession of the premises so as to attract eviction under the rent control law; (ii) Whether the landlord established a bona fide requirement for occupation and absence of other suitable accommodation.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent had sublet, assigned, or otherwise parted with possession of the premises so as to attract eviction under the rent control law.

Analysis: The finding on this ground depended on appreciation of evidence. Both courts below rejected the allegation that the respondent had sublet, assigned, or parted with possession, and the revision court found no misapplication of law or misunderstanding of the governing test. The conclusion rested on factual assessment, which did not justify interference in revision.

Conclusion: The finding against eviction on the ground of subletting or parting with possession was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord established a bona fide requirement for occupation and absence of other suitable accommodation.

Analysis: The statutory requirement was cumulative: the landlord had to show both a genuine need for the premises and the absence of other suitable accommodation. The courts below found that the landlord had sufficient alternative accommodation, and on that basis held that the necessary condition for eviction was not satisfied. The revision court held that the landlord's preference was not conclusive and that the courts were entitled to examine whether the statutory need was and unmet.

Conclusion: The landlord failed to establish the absence of other suitable accommodation, and the claim for eviction on personal requirement failed.

Final Conclusion: No revisional interference was warranted because the concurrent findings rejected both eviction grounds under the rent control statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Eviction on the ground of landlord's requirement can be granted only when the landlord proves both bona fide need and the absence of other suitable accommodation, and concurrent factual findings on such matters are not open to interference in revision absent legal error.

---