The non-examination of the landlord in a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement does not necessarily mean that the alleged requirement is not genuine.

R.C. Lahoti, J.

1. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court directing her suit for ejectment of the defendant/respondent to be dismissed in reversal of the decree or the trial court which had decreed the suit.

2. It is not disputed that the plaintiff/appellant is the owner/landlord of the suit accommodation, residential in nature, held by the defendant/respondent on a monthly tenancy. The trial court had upon an evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parlies found the case of the plaintiff fully proved that the suit accommodation was required bonafide for residence of the plaintiff and her family members consisting of herself, her husband and 8 children, of whom eldest being a daughter was married. The family of the plaintiff was residing in a tenanted premises. Though the family had 3 or 4 rooms in its possession, but the rooms were so small that the entire unit could hardly accommodate even a singlecot. The plaintiff was not possessed of any other alternate accommodation of her own suitable to satisfy her need.

3. The findings of facts arrived at by the trial court have been reversed by the lower appellate court solely on ground of the plaintiff herself having not entered in the witness-box.

4. Vide order dated 15-7-92 this Court admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following substantial question of law:

Whether the first appellate Court was legally wrong in negativing ground of bona fide requirement for residence of the suit accommodation set up on behalf of plaintiff/appellant Vimla Devi on the ground that she did not herself enter in the witness box and instead her husband gave evidence in support of the suit ?

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Court is satisfied that the reversal of the decree by the lower appellate Court has been grossly illegal resulting in failure of justice and hence this Court is obliged to interfere.

6. The plaintiff, though an owner/landlord is yet a house-wife. Her husband Ramswaroop, also a power of attorney holder of his wife - the plaintiff, appeared in the witness-box and deposed to all the facts to substantiate such plaint averments as could have been deposed to by the plaintiff herself. Other evidence was also adduced to lend support to the plaintiff's case. The defendant and his witnesses made such admissions as would be enough to prove the plaintiff's case. The defendant himself admitted the plaintiff with her family residing in tenanted premises. The nature and extent of 3 or 4 rooms in possession of the plaintiff was described by the defendant in a highly oscillating manner and the trial court having considered and appreciated his testimony had arrived at a finding that the statement of defendant was unworthy of credence and on scrutiny led to an inference of the accommodation in possession of the plaintiff being not enough to satisfy her requirement. Purushottamdas, defendant's witness No.2 and a close relation of his, admitted vide para 27 of his statement that the family of the plaintiff included 8 children, apart from the couple, and only the eldest of the children -a daughter was married. The next was a son aged around 20 years and so of a marriageable age. All other children had a difference of 2 years in between. They were studying also. He admitted that the children needed living space separately from their parent's room and also needed adequate accommodation for study.

7. The plaintiff's husband, also a power of attorney holder, appeared in the witness-box and deposed to all the facts constituting the alleged bonafide requirement from his personal knowledge. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but without any loss of his credibility as a witness. Neither before the lower appellate Court nor before this Court the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent has been able to point out anything which was within the exclusive knowledge of the plaintiff and coul