VIMLADEVI Vs. DULICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has come up in second appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court directing her suit for ejectment of the defendant/respondent to be dismissed in reversal of the decree or the trial court which had decreed the suit.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the plaintiff/appellant is the owner/landlord of the suit accommodation, residential in nature, held by the defendant/respondent on a monthly tenancy. The trial court had upon an evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parlies found the case of the plaintiff fully proved that the suit accommodation was required bonafide for residence of the plaintiff and her family members consisting of herself, her husband and 8 children, of whom eldest being a daughter was married. The family of the plaintiff was residing in a tenanted premises. Though the family had 3 or 4 rooms in its possession, but the rooms were so small that the entire unit could hardly accommodate even a singlecot. The plaintiff was not possessed of any other alternate accommodation of her own suitable to satisfy her need.

(3.) VIDE order dated 15 -7 -92 this Court admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following substantial question of law: