1. The present second appeal is preferred against the concurrent finding of fact, recorded by both the Courts below to the effect that the premises in question is required reasonably and bonafidely by the landlord and his son, within the meaning of clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950).

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, at length. Pursued the judgments given by both the courts below.

3. It is urged by the learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, Shri Sagar Mal Mehta that even if the present second appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact, interference is possible, provided, it is demonstrated before this Court that findings are either perverse, or based on no evidence, or it is shown that material evidence is ignored by Courts below and if it would have been (taken) into account by the Court below, the findings would have been otherwise. Lastly, it is submitted that in those second appeals, where ironing out of creases of statutory provisions are involved, even such appeals are concluded by concurrent findings of fact, even then in