- (1.)THE two Courts below have negatived the suit allegations of the plaintiffs -appellants whereunder they had required the suit accommodation on the grounds contained in section 12 (1) (a), (c), (f), (i) and (o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The findings of the two Courts below are the findings of fact. However, Shri Roman, appearing for the appellants, has drawn my attention to para 15 of the impugned judgment. The appellants had filed the document in the lower appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. The document is the written rent -deed. The appellate Court has observed about the deed that there is an averment in the deed that in case of need, the respondent -tenant would also have the authority to reside in the tenanted accommodation. Shri Roman contends that this narration in the impugned judgment is wholly perverse.
(2.)I have perused the document personally and I have failed together from the document any such narration, as has been held by the lower Appellate Court. But the question is whether such a narration of the lower appellate Court in its judgment in para 15 vitiates the whole judgment or even the finding that the tenant has radically and substantially changed the nature of accommodation. In a non -residential accommodation, if in a small part, thereof the tenant starts residing, in the view of this Court, the nature of the accommodation is not substantially changed. Moreso on the evidence led by both the parties, the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court both have found that the nature of the accommodation is not radically and substantially changed.
The findings arrived at by the two Courts below are the findings of fact and no legal question is involved. No ground being available for the eviction of the tenant, the suit has rightly been dismissed. Findings do not require any interference by this Court.

(3.)THE appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed.