( 1 ) THE only question involved in this second appeal is whether a decree passed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of personal necessity under Section 4 (g) of the M. B. Control of Accommodation Act No. 23 of 1955 must be set aside if the plaintiff dies during the pendency of the appeal from that decree.

( 2 ) THE respondent's father Banwarjlal instituted this suit against Motilal appellant on the ground that he required that house for himself because he wanted to shift from his village Barkheda to Biaora, where the disputed house is situate. It was also alleged in the suit that the portion A, B, C, D of the house was actually let out to the defendant while he took wrongful possession of the Other portion E, F, G, H. The suit was resisted by the defendant but he has been unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

( 3 ) IN this second appeal the learned counsel for the defendant contends that the personal requirement must continue up to the date of the judgment in the final Court of appeal, otherwise no decree can be passed for eviction of the tenant and, if one is already passed by the lower Court, it must be set aside by the superior Court. On this argument it i