Bona fide landlord requirement must be proved objectively, and second appeal cannot disturb factual findings absent legal error or perversity.

A finding on a landlord's bona fide need for non-residential premises is ordinarily one of fact, and the High Court in second appeal may interfere only where the finding is vitiated by an error of law, rests on no evidence, or is perverse; mere disagreement with the first appellate court is insufficient. A landlord seeking eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act must prove genuine, objectively assessed need, and a bare assertion is not enough. On the facts stated, the evidence did not establish bona fide requirement, so the eviction decree could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court in second appeal could interfere with the Additional District Judge's finding that the landlord did not bona fide require the non-residential premises for starting his own business; (ii) Whether the landlord had established a bona fide requirement for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court in second appeal could interfere with the Additional District Judge's finding that the landlord did not bona fide require the non-residential premises for starting his own business.

Analysis: The finding on bona fide requirement was based on appreciation of evidence and remained a finding of fact. In second appeal, the High Court could interfere only if the finding was vitiated by an error of law, was based on no evidence, or was so unreasonable or perverse that no reasonable person could have reached it. Mere disagreement with the inference drawn by the first appellate court did not justify interference.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to reverse the factual finding in second appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord had established a bona fide requirement for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

Analysis: A landlord's bare assertion that he requires rented premises for his own business is not conclusive. The requirement must be judged objectively and must disclose an element of need, with the burden resting on the landlord. Preparatory steps such as arranging capital or obtaining permits are not a necessary precondition, but the surrounding circumstances, including long inaction, lack of experience in the proposed business, and the overall evidence, may show absence of genuine need. On the facts found by the Additional District Judge, the evidence supported the conclusion that the alleged need was not bona fide.

Conclusion: The landlord did not establish bona fide requirement for eviction.

Final Conclusion: The decree for eviction could not be sustained, and the suit for possession failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In rent control matters, a finding on bona fide requirement is ordinarily a finding of fact, and the High Court in second appeal cannot disturb it unless it is vitiated by an error of law, no evidence, or perversity; a landlord must prove genuine need on an objective assessment of the evidence, not by mere assertion.

---