Second appeal and bona fide need permit interference for perversity, with partial eviction considered to balance landlord and tenant interests.

In second appeal under Section 100 CPC, interference is permissible where factual findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or based on irrelevant material, even though bona fide need is ordinarily a question of fact. In eviction disputes, the landlord's requirement must be genuine and honest, but the landlord is the best judge of that need. The text also notes that courts should consider whether the requirement can be met by partial eviction, so that the rights of both parties are balanced in a rent control matter. On the facts described, bona fide need was treated as established, while relief was moderated by limiting eviction to part of the premises.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the finding on bona fide need was perverse; (ii) whether the landlord had established bona fide requirement for eviction and whether partial eviction ought to have been considered.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the finding on bona fide need was perverse.

Analysis: Second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law, but interference is permissible where the findings of fact are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or founded on irrelevant material. A finding on bona fide need is ordinarily a question of fact, yet a finding rendered without proper evidentiary support or by misreading the material can justify interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion: The High Court was competent to examine perversity in the factual findings and its interference was not barred merely because the dispute related to bona fide need.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord had established bona fide requirement for eviction and whether partial eviction ought to have been considered.

Analysis: The landlord's need must be genuine, honest, and not a pretext for eviction, but the landlord remains the best judge of his requirement. On the facts, the suit premises were substantially larger and more suitable than the very small rented gumti from which the landlord was carrying on business, and the tenancy had continued for a long period. At the same time, the Court found that the High Court had not examined whether the landlord's requirement could be satisfied by occupying only part of the premises, which was relevant to balancing the rights of both sides in a rent control matter.

Conclusion: Bona fide need was established, but the decree had to be moderated by considering partial eviction; the tenant's challenge succeeded only to that limited extent.

Final Conclusion: The decree of eviction was sustained in principle, but relief was confined to recovery of possession of only half the premises, thereby substantially preserving the landlord's established need while reducing the extent of eviction.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, interference is permissible where factual findings are perverse, and in eviction matters the landlord's bona fide need must be genuine while the Court may restrict relief to partial eviction where that would balance the interests of both parties.

---