JUDGMENT:— This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 16-7-1984 dismissing the appellants second appeal.

2. On respondent/ landlords application for the eviction of the appellant/ tenant, the trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the High Court, all have concurrently upheld the respondents claim that she bona fide required the premises in dispute for demolition and reconstruction. The appellant has challenged those findings in the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the High Court has failed to record any finding that the shop in dispute was in dilapidated condition or that, it required reconstruction, in the absence of such a finding the landlord & bona fide need could not be upheld. He placed reliance on a number of decisions but since none of them relate to interpretation of S. 12(1)(h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, it is not necessary to refer to those decisions. S. 12(1)(h) of the Act permits eviction of tenant from any accommodation on the-ground that the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for there purpose of building or rebuilding or making therein any