Bona fide landlord requirement and comparative hardship: revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or overturn concurrent findings.

A landlord's bona fide requirement for residential and business use was upheld on the evidence, and comparative hardship was treated as a factual issue already determined by the courts below. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded the proper limits of revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and disturbing concurrent findings of fact. On that basis, the landlord's appeal was allowed, the tenant's appeal was dismissed, and eviction was decreed in respect of both portions of the building.

---

---

Issues: Whether the landlord had established bona fide requirement of the premises and whether the High Court could, in revisional jurisdiction, reappreciate evidence and disturb concurrent findings on comparative hardship.

Analysis: The landlord's need for residence and business was found to be established on the evidence, and the question of comparative hardship was also one of fact determined by the courts below. The High Court exceeded the proper limits of revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence and reversing concurrent conclusions reached by the trial court and the first appellate court.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unjustified. The landlord's appeal was allowed, the tenant's appeal was dismissed, and eviction was decreed in respect of both portions of the building.

---