Bona fide requirement is primarily a factual issue, so a second appeal cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent findings.

In a second appeal under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the Supreme Court held that bona fide requirement is ordinarily a question of fact and does not, by itself, constitute a substantial question of law. The trial court and first appellate court had concurrently found that the landlord genuinely needed the premises for business and had no suitable alternative accommodation. As the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and no material showed any vacant, suitable premises in his possession, the High Court could not re-appreciate evidence and disturb those findings. The High Court's interference was therefore unjustified, and the eviction decree was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in second appeal, could reverse concurrent findings of fact on the landlord's bona fide requirement by re-appreciating evidence and treating the existence of other premises as a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The suit for eviction was founded on bona fide requirement under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The trial court and the first appellate court had accepted, on appreciation of evidence, that the landlord genuinely required the premises for opening a business and that no suitable alternative accommodation was available. The Supreme Court held that bona fide requirement is ordinarily a question of fact and does not, by itself, generate a substantial question of law. It further held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement, and there was no material showing that any other premises in his possession were vacant and suitable for the proposed business. The High Court therefore erred in interfering with concurrent findings by reassessing the evidence.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference in second appeal was unjustified and the decree for eviction was restored in favour of the landlord.

---