Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No. 166 of 1980. By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court has reversed the findings of the first appellate Court.

2. The respondent- landlord had filed a suit for eviction in September, 1977, inter alia, under Section 12(l)(e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) alleging that the premises in question was required bona fide for the requirement of the landlord. It was stated in the written statement filed by the petitioner-tenant that the respondent-landlord had already in his occupation sufficient accommodation and the same was sufficient to meet his requirement and that the suit was filed in order to extract the higher rent. The trial Court decreed the suit.

3. The appellant went up in appeal. The Additional District Judge, Indore which was the first appellate Court allowed the appeal of the appellant-tenant and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court under Section 12(l)(e) of the Act. The first appellate Court looked into the evidence and came to the conclusion that the need in respect of suit accommodation was not bona fide one.

4. It was the case of the landlord that three rooms were in his possession in the ground floor and one tin shed which the landlord was formerly using as a garage for his car but which was no longer with him. Landlord was suffering from Harnia and one of the wives was also suffering from Asthama. After analysing the evidence the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the evidence was not such that the plaintiff landlord found it difficult in climbing the stairs and there was no danger of heart-attack as he had stated. So far as the wifes illness was concerned, this also, the first appellate Court did not accept the case on the analysis of the evidence. It was observed by the first appellate Court that the wife of the landlord did not come to the witness box to say that she was suffering from Asthama. Nor the Doctor who was stated to be the family Doctor affirmed that fact. It may, however, be mentioned that the landlord himself is a Doctor. The landlord had stated that six rooms were in his possession and he explained how six rooms were being used and the accommodation with his wife in the ground floor comprises of three rooms; for her residence, kitchen and store and a tin shed for storing fuel etc. In the aforesaid background the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord was not reasonable nor bona fide. It is a well-settled law in this branch that the need of the landlord must be reasonable and must be bona fide in order to evict the tenant on the relevant provisions of the various Acts. Whether in a particular situation the need was reasonable or bona fide must be judged from the objective view point, not merely by assertion or denial of the parties. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court applying the tests which appeared to him to be objective tests found, that such need is not bona fide or reasonable. He accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction.

5. The landlord went up in appeal before the High Court in Second Appeal. The High Court came to the conclusion that the first appellate Court had drawn wrong inferences and there was no proper appreciation of facts and furthermore the High Court was of the opinion that all the facts had not been borne in mind by the first appellate Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and restored the order of the trial Court and ordered eviction.

6. The tenant has come up here. It is well - settled law that in Second Appeal the scope of interference by the High Court is limited.

7. This Court in the case of Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, (1975) 1 SCR 127 had occasion to consider the scope of the Second Appeal under the Madhya Pr