https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171769 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. en-us Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Nov 2023 18:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171769 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171769