JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction from the suit premises against the defendant-appellant. The suit was in respect of a Hall which was being used for commercial purposes since last so many years. The plaintiff sought the ejectment of the defendant on the ground of personal necessity. The plaintiff stated that he and nine other members of his family are residing in a very small dwelling unit which consists of one room only. He had taken this dwelling unit on rent from his brother. According to the plaintiff, the suit Hall measures 30 x 22 sq. feet. The plaintiff further submitted the plan Ex. 3 and expressed that he wents to convert it into a residential unit by constructing toilet, Kitchen etc. and also making wooden partitions. The defendant-appellant resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has got enough accommodation in his possession to serve his purpose. His father owned vast immoveable properties and it was also alleged that some of the properties were given to the plaintiff. It was very vehemently opposed that the above Hall can be converted into residential unit. There is no provision for discharge of rain water as also the water of bath room etc. Normally when the accommodation is commercial one, nobody would convert it into a residential unit. 2. The defendant has further pointed out that the situation of the Hall is very peculiar. It is in the midst of the market and in the vicinity all other first floor buildings are used for commercial purposes. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Munsif framed the Issues. The parties led the evidence and on the basis of the evidence, the learned Munsif was of opinion that though the plaintiff produced the plan Ex. 3 but he could not explain how the above Hall could be converted into a residential unit. According to him, no provision can be made for discharge of rain and other water. Since in the vicinity, the first floor invariably is used for commercial purposes, the plaintiff is not likely to convert it into a residential unit. He, therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 4. According to him, no provision can be made for discharge of rain and other water. Since in the vicinity, the first floor invariably is used for commercial purposes, the plaintiff is not likely to convert it into a residential unit. He, therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 4. However, on appeal, the learned appellate court after analysing the evidence of the parties in detail came to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the learned appellate (trial) court is erroneous that the above Hall cannot be converted into a residential unit. The learned appellate Court was also of opinion that the present accommodation available with the plaintiff is most inadequate to the needs of the plaintiff. It was further noticed that the defendant had constructed his own two storeyed building which is very near to the Income-tax Office. The defendant is an Income-tax Practitioner and can carry on his business from his own residence. The learned appellate Court further pointed out that the defendant has become infirm and his eye-sight too is very weak on account of old age and it is not possible for him to utilise the present Hall properly. He, therefore, reversed the finding of the learned trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 5. I have heard Mr. D.S. Shishodia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Suresh Shreemali for the appellant and Mr. R.M. Bhansali, the learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has very vehemently contended that it is settled law that normally the first appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court based on evidence. If the appellate court intends to take a different view, the reasons assigned by the trial court must be dealt with thoroughly and reasons must be given for taking a different view. The main thrust was that the above commercial Hall can only be used for commercial purposes. This is the general custom in the vicinity where invariably the first floor is being used for commercial purposes. The learned counsel also wondered how the suit Hall can be converted into a residential unit He has submitted that though the plaintiff produced the map Ex. This is the general custom in the vicinity where invariably the first floor is being used for commercial purposes. The learned counsel also wondered how the suit Hall can be converted into a residential unit He has submitted that though the plaintiff produced the map Ex. 3 but he has not produced any expert suggesting that the above Hall can be converted into a residential unit by making adequate provisions for discharge of rain and other water. It is also not possible that such wooden partition is feasible. The learned counsel has cited a few rulings. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of the learned first appellate court and submitted that the judgment passed by the learned appellate court is very detailed and the learned appellate court has dealt with each and every witness and the circumstances relied on for the decision of this important issue. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. 9. A second appeal is normally admitted when substantial question of law is involved as mandated by Section 100, CPC. The appropriate B test for determining whether the question of law raised in the case is substantial would be to see whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties. In the instant case, no such substantial question of law is involved. The serious dispute raised before, this Court as also the first appellate court was whether the suit Hall can be converted into a dwelling Unit. In this context, the finding of the learned trial Court and the first appellate court were divergent. However, I am of the opinion that 'he view taken by the learned first appellate court appears to be correct. Though the plaintiff has not examined any expert who could depose whether the toilet and kitchen can be constructed but in this age of high technical advancement, such petty matters can easily be executed and no such difficulty could be faced by the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff has not examined any expert who could depose whether the toilet and kitchen can be constructed but in this age of high technical advancement, such petty matters can easily be executed and no such difficulty could be faced by the plaintiff. The learned appellate Court has dealt with the evidence of the parties and while dealing with the testimony of each and every witness, he also took note of the counter fact that the accommodation presently available with the plaintiff is highly inadequate and his reasonable and bona fide necessity maybe satisfied if he is allowed to convert the above Hall into a dwelling unit, which is feasible. There is nothing wrong if the plaintiff is allowed to convert the above Hall into a dwelling Unit, It is also in evidence that the defendant has become very old and infirm and his eye-sight is also very weak. He has got a double storeyed building and it cannot be said that he cannot do the practise from his own house. Thus, the comparative hardship also goes in favour of the plaintiff. 10. In this view of the matter, no substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal. 11. In the result, I find no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant prays that the defendant-appellant may be granted six months' time to vacate the suit premises. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case I allow three months' time to the appellant to vacate the suit premises.Appeal dismissed. *******