ORDER 1. The appellant is a retired army personnel and aged about seventy-three years. His case is that his wife is suffering from heart ailment and arthritis; his son, daughter in-law and three grandchildren are residing with him; and has three married daughters. He filed a petition seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises in question on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use as an additional accommodation. The total built-up area of the house of the appellant is 695 square feet, including the premises in question. The premises in question is said to be a storeroom. The storeroom is now in the occupation of the respondent as a shop in which he is carrying on business. The trial court, on consideration of the evidence on record, concluded that the requirement of the premises in question of the appellant was bona fide. The contention of the respondent was that no eviction could be sought from the premises in question for residential purpose since the shop has been constructed for commercial purpose. The first appellate court, in the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of eviction, found that the requirement of the appellant of the premises in question was not bona fide; it took the view that the premises in question, being a shop used for commercial purpose, no eviction decree could be passed against the respondent; it also found that the appellant did not bona fide require the premises in question as the available area in his possession was sufficient and particularly when one shop which was in the occupation of the other tenant has also been vacated during the pendency of the proceedings. In this view, the first appellate court upset the decree of eviction passed by the trial court. The appellant took up the matter in revision before the High Court questioning the validity and correctness of the order passed by the first appellate court. The High Court, unfortunately, without considering the rival contentions in the light of the material placed on record, dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the requirement of the drawing room (baithak) was not bona fide requirement. In that view, the High Court affirmed the order passed by the first appellate court. Hence, this appeal. 2. The High Court, unfortunately, without considering the rival contentions in the light of the material placed on record, dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the requirement of the drawing room (baithak) was not bona fide requirement. In that view, the High Court affirmed the order passed by the first appellate court. Hence, this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first appellate court as well as the High Court committed serious error in reversing the decree passed by the trial court ordering eviction of the respondent. According to the learned counsel, the trial court was right and justified in recording findings in the light of the evidence on record; having regard to the size of the family and also looking to the total built-up area itself being small, the eviction order passed by the trial court could not be reversed. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions in support and in justification of the impugned order of the High Court affirming the order of the first appellate court. 4. Having regard to the material placed on record and looking to the findings recorded by the trial court, it cannot be said that the requirement of the appellant of the premises in question was not bona fide. The trial court was right in passing the decree of eviction against the respondent. The first appellate court was wrong in holding that the requirement was not bona fide taking the view that the available accommodation with the appellant was sufficient as the three daughters were married. We are of the view that the approach of the first appellate court was not realistic. Merely because three daughters were married, it could not be said that they do not come and stay with the appellant even occasionally. The size of the family has grown and the married daughters and sons-in-law of the appellant also could visit the house of the appellant occasionally. That apart, as already noticed above, the total built-up area itself being 695 square feet, in our view, the claim of the appellant of the premises in question for the bona fide use cannot be said to be unreasonable or without any basis. The High Court, in our view, committed a manifest error in holding that the requirement of the drawing room (baithak) is not a bona fide requirement. The High Court, in our view, committed a manifest error in holding that the requirement of the drawing room (baithak) is not a bona fide requirement. Thus, we find merit in the appeal. Hence, the civil appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court affirming the order of the first appellate court is set aside. The decree passed by the trial court is restored. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent sought reasonable time for the respondent to vacate the premises in question. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that any reasonable time, as deemed appropriate, may be granted. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we think it is just and appropriate to grant time to the respondent to vacate the premises in question on or before 31-10-2004, subject to his filing usual undertaking in this Court within a period of four weeks. The appellant landlord shall also file an undertaking, as volunteered by him on behalf of the appellant, within four weeks to the effect that the premises in question shall not be let out to any third party and in case it is so let out, it shall be open to the respondent to claim re-entry in the premises in question. 6. No costs.