JUDGMENT : 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs who are the owners of house property bearing NMC House No. 256, situated at Sammiullah Khan Marg, Sadar Bazar, Ward No. 67, Nagpur. The property consists of ground plus two floors and the front portion is abutting towards road on the ground floor and consists of three shop blocks. Shop Block No. 3 is in occupation of the plaintiffs and the shop Block No. 2 is in possession of the respondent-original defendant and the shop block No. 1 is in possession of one another tenant, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2360 of 2015. The area of Shop Block No. 2 in possession of the defendant admeasures 170 sq. feet. At the time when the suit was filed for eviction and possession, the plaintiffs, who are the real sisters, were aged 66 and 62 years respectively and now they are of 73 and 71 years respectively. 3. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were residing on the second floor and they wanted to occupy the residential portion behind the shop blocks in question as due to their old age they are unable to climb stair case. The area in occupation of the defendant is to be utilized for ingress and egress as well as for parking of the vehicles. The trial Court was satisfied with the bonafide requirement put forth by the parties and therefore, decree for eviction and possession was passed. The lower appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court and hence, the original plaintiffs are before this Court in this writ petition. 4. The lower appellate Court holds that, "it is conveniently established by the evidence of the plaintiffs that they are having sufficient way for approaching the back side portion. It holds that the plaintiffs are having space behind the suit Shop Block No. 2 in their possession. The plaintiffs failed to give any details of the said portion in their possession and even have not taken any endevour to demonstrate as to how it is insufficient for their accommodation". It holds that the plaintiffs are having space behind the suit Shop Block No. 2 in their possession. The plaintiffs failed to give any details of the said portion in their possession and even have not taken any endevour to demonstrate as to how it is insufficient for their accommodation". In the absence of this, according to the lower appellate Court, the plaintiffs have not established that, "the space is not sufficient for their use and occupation due to the old age and ill health". It holds that the plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence to show that they are unable to climb stair case upto the second floor. The family of the plaintiffs comprises of only two persons and it is mere desire which is expressed and there is absence of element of necessity. 5. The findings recorded by the lower appellate Court seems to be based upon the misconception of facts. The plaintiffs were in occupation of the portion on the second floor and wanted to occupy the portion for their residence on the ground floor, which is behind the shop block. The sufficiency or insufficiency of space in their possession on the second floor was not a relevant fact. It was not necessary for the plaintiffs to have produced any Doctor Certificate to establish their inability to climb the stair case. There was no dispute about the existence of way to approach the back side portion of the shop block in question. The requirement put forth was not only for the enlargement of approach way, but also to have a parking space by demolishing the Shop Block No. 2 in possession of the defendant. 6. The trial Court has considered the evidence of the defendant in paragraph 19 and 22 of the judgment, which are reproduced below. "19. D.W.1 Ashok Mehta in cross-examination, admitted that plaintiff alongwith sister is residing. The plaintiffs are residing on the second floor. Adjoining to the suit shop block, there is shop block of Modern Scientific Company and there is shop block of plaintiffs having xerox and dress material shop. On the back side of the shops, there are rooms. That rooms are in possession of the plaintiffs, lying vacant. He further admitted that there is four feet way from east west to enter in that room. In front of his shop, there is hardware shop. On the back side of the shops, there are rooms. That rooms are in possession of the plaintiffs, lying vacant. He further admitted that there is four feet way from east west to enter in that room. In front of his shop, there is hardware shop. That, distance between hardware shop and his shop is of twenty feet. There is public road after 7 ft. He further admitted that suit block is situated in commercial area of Sadar, Nagpur. Family members and brothers of the plaintiff used to visit regularly. Relatives and guests also used to visit plaintiffs house. He do not know that the relatives have to park their vehicle in Sadar Chowk and by walk has to attend the plaintiffs house. The parking space is available on the public road. He used to park his vehicle in front of the shop on road. The plaintiffs are more than 65 years of age. Due to their old age, they are unable to climb up and down. The rooms behind the shop blocks are the most suitable space available to the plaintiffs to reside. Thus, he also admitted plaintiffs had issued notice in the year 2009 for vacating suit shop block. He has replied the notice through Adv. Solanki. 22. In respect of rebuttal charges levelled against the defendant, he was unable to adduce further evidence from Corporation and R.T.O Office to put forth that there is parking area in front of suit shop block which is meant and demarketed for parking space and availability of parking space in that area. Therefore, the need of the plaintiffs put forth to have parking space in front of the building is itself proved by the plaintiffs and the testimony on that count are remained unchallenged and unrebutted". 7. The trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that the defendant had an alternate accommodation in Sadar in Maghnath Chawl. The findings recorded by the lower appellate Court being in ignorance of the aforesaid vital admissions given by the defendant, cannot be sustained. The same will have to be quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the lower appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. The same will have to be quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the lower appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. The decree passed by the trial Court on 15.11.2013 in Regular Civil Suit No. 375 of 2009 is hereby restored. No order as to costs. Rule is made absolute in above terms.