Concurrent findings on bona fide requirement should not be disturbed in Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction without evidentiary basis.

Concurrent findings that the landlord established bona fide requirement for his son's business should not be disturbed in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 unless the interference is contrary to evidence or otherwise legally unsustainable. The Supreme Court found that the High Court wrongly assumed that an earlier vacant shop could have been used, although the son had not completed his education and was not ready to start business at that time. The High Court's reversal of the factual findings was therefore unwarranted, and the decree for eviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the concurrent findings of the courts below that the landlord had established bona fide requirement of the suit shop for his son's business.

Analysis: The trial court and the first appellate court had, on appraisal of the evidence, concurrently held that the premises were required bona fide for the landlord's son to start business. The High Court reversed that finding on the premise that another shop had fallen vacant in 1976 and could have been used for the son's business. The record, however, showed that the son had not completed his education in 1976 and was not ready to commence business then. The High Court's assumption was therefore contrary to the evidence and amounted to unwarranted interference with concurrent factual findings.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reversing the concurrent findings on bona fide requirement. The decree for eviction was rightly restored, and the decision is in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact on bona fide requirement should not be disturbed in supervisory jurisdiction unless the interference is shown to be contrary to evidence or otherwise legally unsustainable.

---