JUDGMENT Heard on admission. In this case respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of bonafide need under section 12 (1) (e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that appellant-defendant constructed his own house at Halipet Colony, Gwalior and as such he was liable to vacate under section 12 (l) of the Act. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence found that defendant/ appellant had constructed his own house at Halipet Colony, Gwalior, and decred the suit of the plaintiff under section 12 (1) (i) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961. The appellant/defendant challenged the said judgment and decree by filing an appeal before the lower appellate Court. The respondent/plaintiff also tiled a cross-objection and prayed that decree under 12(1)(e) be also granted. The lower appellate Court found that defendant in para one of his statement admitted that in tenanted premise consisted of one room, veranda, latrine-bath room in third floor and one room with tin shed at the fourth floor and he admitted tenancy of plaintiff. The lower appellate Court after examining the judgment and decree of the trial Court and oral and documentary evidence found that defendant Balveer Singh in para 9 of his statement admitted that he purchased Halipet Colony house in the name of his son. In para 13 of his cross-examination the defendant admitted that he purchased the house in his name vide registered sale deed 6.10.86 and in para 14 of his cross-examination, he admitted that sale deed executed by Govind Ballab Pant Graha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Mahalgaon, Gwalior in his favour in respect of plot No. 54 and total area of plot is 222.83 square meter. The defendant in his statement further stated that suit house was of one room and latrin-Bath room in third floor and one room and tin shed at fourth floor. In para 18 of his cross-examination defendant admitted that Ex. P-19 to P-20 was the card and envelope of marriage of his son Rajesh in which he gave the address of Halipet Colony's house which was constructed by him. The lower appellate Court in view of the above finding affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court under section 12 (1) (i) of the Act. P-19 to P-20 was the card and envelope of marriage of his son Rajesh in which he gave the address of Halipet Colony's house which was constructed by him. The lower appellate Court in view of the above finding affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court under section 12 (1) (i) of the Act. In respect of bona fide need the lower appellate Court has found that Kishan Lal (PW I) in para 5 of his statement stated that the suit house was required for his family members and plaintiff and his sons were not having any other alternative accommodation of his own. The plaintiff Kishan Lal (PW I) in para 6 of his statement stated that he had one shop in the house of Lohia Bazar 'in 1st floor. One room was occupied by the son of Pradeep Kumar. In paragraphs 7 and 8 he stated that the present accommodation was not sufficient for his family members as well as the family, of Pradeep Kumar. The lower appellate Court found that plaintiff proved his case in respect of bona fide need and decreed the suit under section 12(1) (e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act and allowed the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent and dismissed the appeal of defendant/appellant. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record of the case. In view of the clear admission made by the defendant/appellant in his evidence that he purchased the land and constructed the house at Halipet Colony, Gwalior, the finding is unassailable. I found that both the Courts below have not committed any error in granting the decree under section 12 (1) (i) of the Act. The learned lower appellate Court has found that plaintiff required the suit premises for his son and his family members and granted decree under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act. The findings recorded by the Courts below are a finding of fact. Learned counsel for appellant failed to point out any illegality and perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below in respect of bona .fide need. The lower appellate Court after appreciating the evidence of the plaintiff-defendant found that plaintiff had proved his case regarding bona-fide need and suit premises was required for his son Pradeep Kumar and his family who were not having any other alternative accommodation except the suit house. The lower appellate Court after appreciating the evidence of the plaintiff-defendant found that plaintiff had proved his case regarding bona-fide need and suit premises was required for his son Pradeep Kumar and his family who were not having any other alternative accommodation except the suit house. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this case. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed in limine.