Short Note : 1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent defendant from the suit accommodation on the ground mentioned under section 12 (1) (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. the respondent- defendant disputed the right of the appellant-defendant to secure his ejectment on the ground mentioned on the basis that the accommodation in the occupation of the appellant plaintiff is sufficient for him and his family members. It was not disputed before me that the accommodation in which the appellant-plaintiff has been living belongs to the joint family consisting of himself, his mother and brother. 2. The trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. But in appeal filed by the respondent-defendent the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. That Court held that the appellant-plaintiff did not require the suit accommodation bona fide for his occupation or for his family members. According to that Court, the appellant plaintiff failed to prove that the accommodation in his occupation was in any manner insufficient and not according to his needs. Hence this second appeal by the appellant-plaintiff. 3. Held: The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff was that the accommodation in the occupation of the appellant-plaintiff was of the joint family and he had been living in that accommodation as one of the members of the family and, therefore, the suit accommodation. which was purchased by him, can be got vacated by him from the tenant on the ground that it was required bona fide for his and his family's residence. The proposition of law whether in such a case an accommodation can still be claimed by a member of a joint family has been well laid down in B.S. Shori v. Sitaram Singh [Second Appeal No. 438 of 1961. decided on 30-3-1962. (1962 JLJ Short Note No. 215)], with which I am in full agreement. In the instant case it has been held as a fact that the appellant-plaintiff alone with his family members was in occupation of the full house belonging to the joint family and he failed to prove that the accommodation in his occupation was in any manner short of his needs and as such he required the suit accommodation. In the instant case it has been held as a fact that the appellant-plaintiff alone with his family members was in occupation of the full house belonging to the joint family and he failed to prove that the accommodation in his occupation was in any manner short of his needs and as such he required the suit accommodation. The finding that the accommodation is not required bona fide by the landlord would be a finding of fact not open to challenge in second appeal See Mattulal v. Radheylal ( AIR 1974 SC 1596 )]. 1962 JLJ SN 215 and AJR 1974 SC 1596 relied on. Appeal dismissed.