- (1.) The primary question raised is as to what should be the extent of interference in appeal in respect of a finding of reasonable requirement, particularly, when the finding is sought to be upset on the ground of fresh letting out after the institution of the suit when there was no evidence in such regard before the trial court.
(2.) The plaintiffs challenge the judgment and decree of reversal in an appeal from a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement.
(3.) The suit was instituted in the year 1997. It is an admitted position that after the suit was instituted the plaintiffs obtained possession of some other rooms at the building which considerably eased the circumstances in which a family of the plaintiffs was residing at the suit premises. The trial court found that a case of reasonable requirement had been made out in view of the large number of members in the plaintiffs' family. The plaintiffs were in occupation of the first floor of the building and of another portion of the ground floor. Though a commissioner's report prepared at the interlocutory stage of the suit showed that the plaintiffs may have been in possession of one or more rooms than the plaintiffs had indicated in the plaint, there was no doubt as to the number of members in the plaintiffs' family.;