Bona fide personal necessity and second appeal evidence rules upheld, sustaining eviction and rejecting remand.

Concurrent findings that the landlords proved bona fide personal necessity were treated as findings of fact supported by the record, and the plea that the plaint was sketchy did not justify disregarding the evidence actually led. The appellants' evidence was found insufficient to displace that need, so the eviction decree was sustained. The Court also held that no proper basis existed to permit additional evidence or a remand at the second appellate stage, especially where no such request had been pursued earlier, so that request was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the decree for eviction based on bona fide personal necessity was sustainable on the evidence on record. (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to adduce additional evidence or to a remand at the second appellate stage.

Issue (i): Whether the decree for eviction based on bona fide personal necessity was sustainable on the evidence on record.

Analysis: The findings recorded by the first appellate court and affirmed by the High Court were findings of fact based on appraisal of the evidence. The plea that the plaint was too sketchy to permit evidence on bona fide requirement did not justify ignoring the evidence actually led on that issue. The appellants' evidence to disprove the respondents' need was found insufficient, and the factual conclusion that the respondents required the premises for their own use was supported by the record.

Conclusion: The finding of bona fide personal necessity was upheld and the eviction decree was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to adduce additional evidence or to a remand at the second appellate stage.

Analysis: No sufficient basis existed to permit additional evidence in second appeal, particularly when no such request had been pursued in the first appellate court. In the absence of any legal justification for reopening the evidence, a remand was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The request for additional evidence and remand was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal disclosed no error in the concurrent approach below and was liable to fail in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact on bona fide requirement will not be disturbed in second appeal absent legal error, and additional evidence or remand will not be ordered without a proper foundation for reopening the record.

---