The petitioners who are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff-landlord have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the impugned judgment and order by which the Appellate Court has reversed a decree of eviction passed in favour of the original plaintiff.

2. The suit filed by the plaintiff relates to suit premises bearing Block No.2 having three rooms more particularly described in the plaint. The suit premises was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant. The suit was filed on the ground of arrears of rent, bonafide requirement and acquisition of suitable residence. The allegation in the suit was that there are 18 members in the family of the plaintiff out of which his three sons were married and one son was of marriageable age. It was contended that the premises possessed by the plaintiff was not sufficient to accommodate 18 members of the family. Another allegation was that the defendant had been alloted a residential quarters by virtue of his employment. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement. The trial Court upheld the ground of bonafide requirement. Issue of comparative hardship was answered by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. The ground of the acquisition of suitable residence was also upheld. In an appeal preferred by the defendant-tenant, the Appellate Court has interfered and has set aside the decree for eviction.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited my attention to the findings recorded by the trial Court. He pointed out that the trial Court accepted the case made out in the deposition of the plaintiff's son. He pointed out that the finding of the trial Court was that the plaintiff has three sons who are married and there were 12 children in the family. He pointed out that even according to the case of the defendant, the plaintiff was in possession of three bigger rooms. He stated that the defendant specifically admitted that there were 22 members in the family of the plaintiff. He pointed out the finding of the trial Court on the issue of comparative hardship. He pointed out that apart from the fact that the defendant was entitled to reside in railway quarters, it was for the defendant to search suitable accommodation. He pointed out that even before the trial Court, the plaintiffs offered that some time to vacate be granted to the defendant. Inviting my attention to the findings of the Appellate Court he submitted that the same are perverse. He submitted that the Appellate Court also accepted that there were 22 members in the family of the plaintiff. He invited my attention to the finding of the Appellate Court on the issue of comparative hardship. He submitted that the Appellate Court has completely ignored the fact that no efforts were made by the defendant to secure some other accommodation. He submitted that the perverse finding recorded by the Appellate Court on both the aforesaid issues is required to be set aside.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and decree. He submitted that in absence of any evidence to show that no other premises are available to the plaintiff, the Appellate Court was justified in disturbing the decree. He submitted that no interference is called for with the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court. Lastly, he submitted that petition is of the year 1993 and therefore it is necessary to permit the parties to adduce further evidence on the issue of comparative hardship by remanding the matter to the Appellate Court. He submitted that one of the grounds stated by the plaintiff was that the respondent being an employee of railways, he was entitled to service quarters. He submitted that with the passage of time the respondent must have reached age of superannuation and therefore further evidence is required to be adduced.

4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Perusal of the find