Judgment :

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

Leave granted.

2. This is a landlord's appeal by Special Leave against the order of the High court reversing the concurrent decree of eviction from commercial premises at Guwahati in Assam. The Trial Court, the Appellate Court concurrently found that the respondent was a wilful defaulter and liable to be evicted. They have also found that the appellants herein required the premises for their own business purpose. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure reversed the concurrent findings of facts and accordingly dismissed the suit for eviction filed by the appellants against the respondents.

3. The premises in question is a commercial one. There is no dispute of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. Only two substantial issues framed by the Trial Court were: (1) whether the respondent committed any default in payment of rents since April, 1993 as pleaded by the appellants? (2) Whether the appellants required the suit premises bona fide for their own use? On both the issues the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court concurrently held in favour of the appellants.

4. The High Court upon re-appreciation of evidence reversed the findings of the courts below.

5. In this appeal, Shri Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants strenuously contended that the High Court committed a manifest error in interfering with the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the courts below by reappreciating the evidence which is impermissible in law. He also contended that the appellants clearly made out and established their case that the respondent committed default in payment of rents since April, 1993 till the date of filing of the suit. The appellants have also successfully established that the premises in question is required by them for their own business purposes. His submission was that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the concurrent findings of facts. Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the High Court on facts was justified in reversing the findings of the courts below inasmuch as the findings recorded by the courts below were perverse in nature. It was submitted that the courts below committed serious error in exercise of their jurisdiction and ignoring vital evidence and in such circumstances the High Court was well within its jurisdiction to correct the errors committed by the courts below in exercise of their jurisdiction.

Bona fide Requirement of the Premises:

6. The appellants in their plaint in clear and categorical terms pleaded that the schedule premises is bona fide required by them "for their own use as they and their sons have to do their own business from the schedule premises,............." The respondent in the written statement pleaded that the schedule premises is not required bona fide by the appellants for their own use. That apart, it was further pleaded that the appellants already started new business in the year, 1997 in their own premises. "Besides this, the plaintiffs have a number of tenants under them such as Canara Bank, Madan Electricals etc. in the same building, but no case has been filed against them for vacating the premises which shows that the plaintiffs are not in need of premises for their own use and occupation.........." Plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW-1 in the present case. It is specifically stated by him that the premises is required for starting new business for own sons for which purposes they have sufficient funds and also can manage required resources from the financial institutions for starting new business. In the cross-examination it was suggested to PW-1 that he did not state in the plaint as to what type of business the plaintiffs intended to start in that premises. It was not suggested that the appellants did not possess the financial resources for commenci