The Rent Controller after consideration of evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent-Landlady was the daughter of Lajwanti (since deceased) from whom admittedly the petitioner took the premises in dispute on rent. It was further found by the Rent Controller that the respondent-landlady as well as her brother have categorically stated in consistent terms while corroborating each other that the respondent was landlady of the demised premises. The statement of Sham Lal tendered into evidence as RW-2/A was discarded by the Rent Controller as he failed to face the cross-examination. In the absence of any other evidence on record produced by the petitioner-tenant, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that after the death of Lajwanti (the previous owner), she was survived by Usha Rani, Ashok Kumar and Sham Lal, thus, the respondent has become the landlady of the demised premises. Similarly under issues No.1 and 3B, the Rent Controller found that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs.350/- and the petitioner was in arrears since 1.1.2000 as he has failed to produce any convincing evidence to show that he had paid the said amount. The petitioner-tenant did not choose to tender rent in the Court on the first date of hearing and as a result of aforesaid, the petitioner was liable to be evicted. Under issue No.2, the Rent Controller found that the respondent requires the demised premises for her bona fide personal necessity as she has categorically stated that she wants to shift to Kurali which is her ancestral town and her son is also residing at Kurali. Under
