Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) A suit for eviction of an accommodation from the tenant to whom it had been let for residential and non residential purposes resulted in dismissal by the trial Judge. But in an appeal, the final court of fact took the view that the landlord (respondent) was entitled to eviction. The tenant challenged the appellate decree before the High Court in Second Appeal without success and has therefore come up to this Court with this appeal by special leave.
(2.) A short point has been raised which deserves only a short answer. Since we agree with the High Court which in turn has agreed with the first appellate court, our judgment can afford to be brief.
(3.) A statement of necessary facts may now be given. The landlord had let out the premises, which is a storeyed building, to the tenant as per Ex. P-1 of 1955. The significant clause in the lease deed runs thus: "1. ********** 2. I take your house for my own use i.e. for opening a cloth shop and for residential purposes and I will not sub-let your house to anybody. ********** " The tenant has thus put the building the business and residential purposes. The landlord, who is an M.Sc., claimed the building back on the score that he wanted to run a medical store on the ground floor - a nonresidential purpose - and stay on the first floor with his wife - a residential purpose. Thus the accommodation was let out for dual purposes, was being used presumably for these requirements and was being claimed back by the landlord for the twin purposes mentioned above. The final court of fact has held that the landlord needs the building for his chemist's shop and for his residential use. The High Court in Second Appeal has upheld this finding and added that "the finding as to his bona fide requirement was rightly not challenged before me ...... The conclusion that the courts have reached is the only conclusion possible on the evidence on record in the light of the circumstances appearing." This statement by the High Court that the bona fide requirement of the landlord was not challenged before it has not been questioned in the memorandum of appeal to this Court. It must therefore be taken that the bona fide need of the landlord is validly made out.;