- (1.) In this case, the suit premises is a non-residential one. The original landlord. Ram Chandra, who has since died, claimed that he was carrying on textile business in the rental premises and that the suit premises which is occupied by the appellants was bona fide required for the said business. The trial court accepted the case of the landlord and directed eviction. On appeal, the same was reversed. In the second appeal, the judgment of the appellate court was set aside and the original decree for eviction was restored. Hence, this Civil.
(2.) The following points are urged by the learned counsel for the appellants : (1 Bona fide need is a question of fact. The first appellate court is the final court in relation to such questions of fact. The same cannot be interfered with by the High court under Section 100 of the Code of civil Procedure. In support of this submission, Mattulal v. Radhe Lal is cited. (2 In any event, as on today, the original landlord, Ram Chandra, died and his sons have no intention of starting business. Therefore, the bona fide need had disappeared. In opposition to this, Mr H. K. Puri, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this is a case in which the High court has found that the lower appellate court was not justified in reversing the decision of the trial court without properly appreciating the evidence. It is further found that the judgment of the lower appellate court was perverse. If that be so, even within the restricted scope of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code interference was warranted at the hands of the High court. The decision cited by the appellants, Mattulal v. Radhe Lal', therefore is not applicable to the facts of the case.
(3.) It is true Ram Chandra, the original landlord, died but his son, Arun kumar, after retirement has been continuing the said textile business of his father. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the bona fide need had disappeared.;