MANGILAL Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-2-1982 passed by the first additional judge to the court of District Judge Mandsaur in Civil Appeal No. 41-A of 1981 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1981 passed by the civil judge class II, Mandsaur in Civil Suit No. 364-A of 1980.

(2.) The plaintiff appellant filed the present suit for eviction of the defendant respondent from the tenanted residential accommodation on the ground that the plaintiff required the accommodation for residence of himself and members of his family and that the accommodation in his occupation was insufficient for his requirement. The defendant resisted the suit. He denied that the plaintiff required the tenanted accommodation for residence of himself and members of his family. The trial court held that the requirement of the plaintiff was proved and decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant the appellate court held that it was not proved that the accommodation in occupation of the plaintiff was insufficient for the residence of himself and members of his family. The appellate court consequently allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the appellate court the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the appellate court has committed an error of law in holding that the accommodation already in possession of the plaintiff is sufficient for his requirement. The accommodation in possession of the plaintiff consists of two rooms on the ground floor, two rooms on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor. The plaintiff's family consist of himself his wife his mother two children of the age of 15 years and four children below 12 years of age. The appellate court held the taking into consideration the size of the family of the plaintiff it was not proved that the accommodation already in possession of the plaintiff was insufficient for the requirement of the plaintiff and that he requires the tenanted accommodation for the residence of himself and members of his family. This is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and is binding on this court in second appeal.