The concept of 'felt need' in the context of bona fide requirement under Section 12(1)(e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, means a need that is based on certain events that are sure to happen in the near future and can be perceptibly felt.

R.C. Lahoti, J.

1. A suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant seeking ejectment of the defendant/respondent from the suit accommodation, residential one, on the grounds available under clauses (a) and (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (the 'Act', for short), having been dismissed by the Courts below; the present appeal has been filed.

2. The question on which the appeal was admitted for hearing on 7-4-1984 has been recast during course of hearing by enlarging its scope and hence the appeal has been heard on the following question : -

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decrees of the respondent on the ground of genuine requirement of the plaintiff for residence of her members of the family are perverse and liable to be set aside."

3. The suit was filed by one Avantika Bai, who having expired during the pendency of this appeal, her legal representatives have been brought on record. Ground under clause (a) has been negatived by the Courts below and the learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute that finding. The facts to be stated hereinafter shall be confined to the ground under clause (e).

4. It is not disputed that the house owned by the plaintiff is double storeyed. On the ground floor, a major portion is occupied by the defendant/respondent while two rooms are occupied by two different other tenants. On the first floor there are only two rooms which are in possession of the appellant. The family of the appellant consists of one widowed daughter-in-law serving as a Nurse at Chanderi, two grand-sons of whom one resides with Draupadibai, a grand-daughter-in-law and her children. The plaintiff has three daughters, all married.

5. The case as emerging from the plaint filed by the plaintiff at the age of 85 is that on account of old age residence on the upper floor was not suitable for the plaintiff, young children in the family feel suffocated being confined on upper floor where they could not so play and be active as they could do on the ground floor; the widowed daughter-in-law posted at Chanderi, aged 53 years, would retire and shift to Gwalior and even before that she was trying to be posted at Gwalior which posting and transfer was postponed for paucity of accommodation. The, grand-son (son of the widowed daughter-in-law) aged 22, also wanted to shift to Gwalior, leaving education, so as to gainfully work at Gwalior and assist the family; the grand-son being of marriageable age was likely to be married in near future. On all the facts the plaintiff pleaded that the accommodation occupied by the tenant was required by the plaintiff to satisfy her additional requirement which was bona fide and for which purpose she was not possessed of any other accommodation. In the written statement, the facts were denied, but without raising any other special plea. It may be stated here itself that it was never the case of the defendant/respondent that the plaintiff was possessed of any other accommodation or that she had at any time relet out any other accommodation which might have come into her possession.

6. The Courts below have negatived the case of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff was not proved to be so sick or infirm as might not be able to live comfortably on the upper floor of the house. As to other facts, the Courts below formed an opinion that the case could be termed to be one of future need only and hence could not be considered.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has vehemently submitted that gross injustice has been done to her because of the Courts below having misconstrued the concept about the felt-need in the context of bona fide requirement. He submits that the gross error of law committed by the Courts below is liable to be corrected by this Court in exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction.

8. The phraseology used in Section 12(l)(e) of the Act indicates that the Legislature intended to provide 'requirem