https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187840 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. en-us Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:08:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187840 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187840