JUDGMENT On perusing the evidence on record I find that the applicant has stated that there are four tenants in the house who are Laxman Rao, Kanchan Bai, Chhogalal and Shyamlal. She also admits to have two rooms in the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor. According to her the number of her family members is seven. She herself, her son Devilal, wife of Devilal, one grand son, wife of the grand son and two daughters. According to her she faces great difficulty in accommodating the members of the family in the four rooms. The latrine and bathroom are situated on the ground floor and she has to reside on the first floor, therefore, she feels great difficulty in going up and coming down. She admits that Ramchandra had vacated the house and after that she has filed this suit. A suggestion was made that Shyamlal is her tenant but she denies this fact and she states that he is the son of her daughter who resides on the ground floor. She had denied the suggestion that she wants to get the house vacated and give it on enhanced rent. P.W.1 Devilal, who is the son of the applicant, has supported, the statement of Rambha Bai. According to him Rambha Bai resides with him on the first floor and after the vacation of the house the family wants to reside in the vacated premises. He denies the suggestion that he will let it out on rent. He also states about the bona-fide requirement of his mother because of the paucity of the accommodation in the house. The Non-applicant present petitioner Kanchan Bai has stated that after Ramchandra vacated the house, which comprises of two rooms situated on the ground floor, Shyamlal occupied the said portion after the filing of the suit. Rambha Bid has four rooms in her possession. The learned lower Court after considering the respective evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that four rooms are insufficient for a family of seven members, out of which four persons comprise of two married couples. Therefore, on the appreciation of the evidence the R.C.A. found that the bona fide requirement of the landlord is proved. The learned lower Court after considering the respective evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that four rooms are insufficient for a family of seven members, out of which four persons comprise of two married couples. Therefore, on the appreciation of the evidence the R.C.A. found that the bona fide requirement of the landlord is proved. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when two rooms are vacated by Ramchandra, Rambha Bai could very well occupy those rooms instead of giving it to Shyamlal and as they have been given on rent to Shyamlal, this shows that the requirement is not bona-fide. In support of his contention he has cited the case of Dattraya v. Nandibai(1985, MPWN SN-181) and a Supreme Court decision in AmarjitSingh v. Smt. Khatoon Qusmarain ( AIR 1987 SC 741 ) wherein the principle enunciated is that when the landlord could have taken possession of the other reasonable accommodation available to him, but does not do so, then the need of such a landlord cannot be held to be bona-fide. In the instant case, in my opinion, the aforesaid authorities do not help the case of the applicant because Shyamlal is not a tenant, but the grand-son of the applicant-landlord and, therefore, it cannot be said that when the accommodation was available she could take possession of that accommodation instead of letting it out. There is no evidence on record that the said accommodation was let out by the applicant and then she is claiming vacant possession from the tenant of the other part of the accommodation. In the instant case it is not in dispute that there are only four rooms in possession of the landlord when seven members are in her family. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the accommodation available with the landlord is not sufficient for her and her family members and that she requires the accommodation bona-fide on the ground floor in view of the advanced age and the latrine and bath room being located on the ground floor. The learned R.C.C. has not erred in any way in appreciating the evidence and there is no case for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Court. 1985 MPWN 181 AIR 1987 SC 741 distinguished.