The need of the landlord for accommodation must be genuine and the landlord must show that he genuinely required the accommodation.

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 himself. Respondent No. 3 has total number of four members including two children and wife. So far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, the constitution of the family is two only i.e. respondent No. 4 and his wife. In addition to this it was indicated that respondent No. 3 and 4 have two sisters. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 3 and 4 have their parents and respondents No. 1 had his mother also. In this manner the total family members were totaled as 26. So far as the accommodation is concerned it was pointed out that there are six rooms and a patore. The requisite assertions was made in para-6 of the plaint.

4. The plaint is signed by Sitaram. In this he stated that he is attorney holder of four respondents.

5. Written statement was filed.

6. The need of the landlord was denied.

7. The matter was put to trial.

8. The statement of parties were recorded.

9. Only attoney appearned in the witness box.

His statement stands recorded as Pw.-1. In the statement he stated that he holds valid power of attorney. The photostate copies of these were placed on record. This was duly exhibited as P-1 and P-2. He stated that he is looking alter the family affairs since long and is fully conversant with the facts of the case. With regard to the strength of the family he gave information in paragraph 4, 5, 6 & 7 of his statement. The total family members were counted as 28. He however admitted that so far as Satish Chandra is concerned he is an employee of the irrigation department and is posted outside Gwalior. He however, stated that whenever there is some family get-together all these family members come and stay at Gwalior. With regard to Ashok Kumar he stated that he is a practicing advocate and practices at Dabra. He however, made an attempt to point out that this Ashok Kumar does come to Gwalior also. He however admitted that all family members of Ashok Kumar are staying at Gwalior and his children are having their education at Dabra. He stated that so far as Ashok Kumar is concerned he practices at Dabra and Gwalior but was unable to point out that Ashok Kumar is member of Gwalior Bar Association. In para 11 of the statement he stated that the plaintiff respondents have eight rooms with them. It was stated that in this accommodation the family members arc staying. One room was said to be used for religious purposes. A room was also used for storing foodgrains. This aspect of the matter was reiterated when he was cross-examined. He stated mat in addition of eight rooms there are four kitchen, three latrines and three bathrooms. Errection of the house commenced in the year 1973 was completed in 1974. It was also admitted that one of the tenants had vacated the premises and the premises vacated by him are in the possession of the landlord and these were not relet.