JUDGMENT 1. - After hearing Mr. Pana Chand Jain learned counsel for the tenant appellant I find that the lower appellate Court has affirmed the decree of the trial Court for eviction against the tenant-defendant on the ground that the respondent-landlord requires the premises reasonably and bonafide for use and occupation for himself and his family. There is enough evidence on the record to prove that the landlord-respondent is living in a rented house and that he needs to occupy the premises in suit for the residence of himself and his family. The landlord-respondent appeared as his own witness and explained his own need for occupation of the premises in dispute for his residence. He deposed that he is at present living in rented premises and that his lessor is pressing him hard for vacating the said premises. 2. Om Prakash the lessor of the landlord-respondent in the instant case also appeared as witness and deposed that he has been requesting landlord-respondent to vacate his house and that the landlord respondent has given him a promise to do so as soon as he is able to acquire vacant possession of his own house from the tenant-appellant. 3. It has also come in evidence that the present premises in occupation of the landlord of the respondent as a tenant of Om Prakash consists of merely one room and a kitchen. The premises are even otherwise damp and dingy. 4. Kannabhai, one of the tenant-appellants admitted in his evidence that the premises in suit are being used by the tenant firm for packing beedies and that the said firm has some other premises in its occupation which are also being used for a similar purpose. 5. On a balance of the evidence produced before it both the Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that the landlord-respondent needs the premises in suit reasonably and bonafide for his own residence and that it will work more hardship to him if the suit is not decreed than to the defendant-tenant in the event of the decree of the suit. I find myself in agreement with both the Courts below on these points. 6. It will thus be seen that the tenant-appellant has been rightly ordered to be evicted from the premises in suit by the Courts below. The present appeal raises no question of law of much less a substantial question of law. I find myself in agreement with both the Courts below on these points. 6. It will thus be seen that the tenant-appellant has been rightly ordered to be evicted from the premises in suit by the Courts below. The present appeal raises no question of law of much less a substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.Appeal dismissed. *******