( 1. ) THIS appeal has been filed by the landlord against the reversing judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 59-A/2003 decided on 18. 2. 2005 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Ninth Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 5-A/97 decided on 22. 4. 2002 has been reversed and the suit filed by the landlord/plaintiff for eviction has been dismissed.

( 2. ) THIS Court had admitted this second appeal on the following substantial question of law: "1. Whether non-examination of the plaintiff was fatal to the eviction suit, when her son Dr. Sanjeev Sarkar and his wife Dr. Rupa Sarkar were examined to prove their bonafide need ?"

( 3. ) AT the time of hearing it is observed that the following additional substantial questions of law also arise for adjudication in this appeal namely:

"2]. Whether the First Appellate Court has committed gross error of law by ignoring the extensive and cogent evidence on record in respect of bonafide need of the son of the appellant/plaintiff while allowing the appeal filed by the tenant ? and 3]. Whether in the absence of any pleading in the plaint, as amended by the appellant/plaintiff that in the presence of adequate evidence on record to the effect that she has no other alternative suitable accommodation in the city, the appeal filed by the landlord/plaintiff deserves to be dismissed ?"

( 4. ) IN respect of the first substantial question of law it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction of the shop situated in House No. 308/2 (old) Ram Manohar Lohia Ward, Marhatal, Jabalpur, which is in occupation of the respondent/tenant, for the purposes of bonafide requirement of her son for extending and expanding the hospital being run by him in the other portion of the accommodation. It is submitted that the trial court, on extensive examination of the evidence on record, recorded a finding to the effect that the tenanted premises was required bonafide by the appellant/plaintiff for her son for the purposes of establishing a modern hospital and decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to establish the bonafide requirement of the firm for whose requirement the accommodation was required on account of the fact that the appellant/plaintiff herself did not appear in the witness box to make a statement in respect of the bonafide requirement and in such circumstances the decree for eviction, sought by the appellant/landlord, could not be granted. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the accommodation was required for the bonafide requirement of her son Dr. Sanjeev Sarkar and his wife Dr. Roopa Sarkar, both of whom have been examined as P. W-3 and P. W-4 respectively, the First Appellate Court has erred in law in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent/defendant on this count as non-examination of the plaintiff cannot be said to be fatal to the appellants case in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

( 5. ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant on the other hand submits that the plaintiff has not entered into the witness box to affirm the case set up by her before the trial court and in such circumstances the First Appellate Court was right in allowing the appeal by drawing an adverse inference in accordance with the provisions of Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act ).

( 6. ) BEFORE I advert to the discussion on the aforesaid substantial question of law, it is appropriate to take note of the fact that the plaintiff had initially filed a suit claiming bonafide requirement of the accommodation for a firm of which she was alleged to be the managing partner. Subsequently, the plaint was amended before the trial court by adding para 4b therein and setting up a case of bonafide requirement of t