ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The High Court by its order dated 6.9.96 in Second Appeal No. 206 of 1995 set aside the findings recorder by both the courts below in which they held that the need of the landlord was not bona fide under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The main submission by the learned senior counsel Mr. Sanghi on behalf of the appellants is that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below. Her has taken us to the findings recorded both by the trial Court and also by the first appellate Court. Having perused the said two judgments, we find the main consideration by both the courts below were, the conduct of landlord-Respondent between the years 1975 to 1980. In 1975 he purchased this property and then made an application for the eviction of the then tenant, on the ground of his bona fide need of doing his business in the disputed shop. The court ultimately decreed it followed by the tenant vacating the accommodation. Inspite of this the respondent did not start any business in the said shop. On the contrary he inducted in new tenants which was only for the enhancement of its rent and not for starting any business.

3. We find the courts below have scrutinised the evidence but solely based its decision on the past conduct of the landlord without taking into consideration of the present need. The appellate courts recorded the following findings :

" It is clear from evidence of appellant himself that this tenanted suit portion was given on rent to nephew of the appellant Murarilal and on his vacating it, it was given to the respondent and according to statement of appellant himself, appellant had not done said business at that time.....… also clear from the evidence that the appellant before giving shop on rent had given this shop earlier to Murarilal, Gaya Prasad and Navdurga people and on receiving advance increased the rent…..which is indicative of the fact that the appellant filed this suit with the objective of increasing rent as held by the subordinate Court…..."

4. The said reference is of the happenings priors to 1980.

5. The present respondent was inducted as tenant admittedly on 17th October, 1980. This finding no doubt records the conduct of the landlord during the said period, i.e., between 1975-1980. But we find there is no consideration about the need of the landlord in terms of the present application which was moved in 1987. Learned senior counsel Mr. Sanghi vehemently submits that consideration by the courts below of the past conduct is a relevant consideration. Even if past conduct could be said to be relevant consideration but that by itself is not sufficient to reject the claim of the landlord for a need he requested after seven long years. Hence we feel High Court has rightly interfered with such findings recorded by both the Courts below. Such finding is perverse. The High Court in second appeal framed a substantial question of law, which is recorded hereunder:

"Whether the ground of genuine requirement could be negatived for the reasoning that earlier when the shop was got vacated, it was relet out in the year 1980, whereas the present need of the suit shop is for the younger son of the plaintiffs named Vijay Kumar, who became major only in the year 1987?"

6. The High Court after examining the facts on his question found that the findings of the Courts below of reletting the accommodation after getting it vacated for the personal need in the year 1980 cannot defeat the bona fide need of the landlord for the year 1987.

7. High Court rightly considered the fresh need which was after the passage of seven long years between the last order and the present application made by the landlord. By this passage of time the need has changed, his minor son has become major for whose need there was specific pleading and evidence was also led.

8. We find High Court has given due consideration and has giv