T.S. Doabia, J.

1. A suit filed by the respondents/landlords for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) came to be dismissed. An appeal was preferred. This appeal has been allowed. The first appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide. It is against this judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the present appeal has been preferred.

2. It be seen that the suit was filed by the power of attorney holder of the landlords who figure as respondents in this appeal. Two power of attornies were placed on record. These have been exhibited as P-1 and P-2. P-1 is a power of attorney in favour of Sitaram. This was executed by Ram Dayal and Bhagwati Prasad. Second attorney stands exhibited as P-2. This is again in favour of Sitaram. This has been executed by Satish Chandra, Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar.

3. In the plaint the need which was projected be noticed :

In Para-4, it was pleaded that respondent No. 1 has six children. In total there are eight family members. These eight members include respondent himself and his wife. Respondent No. 2 had four children. He has total seven members in his family. This include his widowed mother and h