( 1. ) THIS is a second appeal by the landlord in a suit for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity from the dissident appellate judgment of the District Court setting aside the decree in his favour passed by the trial Court. The appellate Court has not questioned the finding of the personal necessity but has held that the plaintiff had not acted bona fide in this regard because sometime before the filing of the suit he had accommodation available to him, namely, three rooms on the second floor of the house but he let it out to a tenant and brought this suit for five rooms on the first floor of the same building. The appellate Court regarding this mala fide set aside the decree in favour of the plaintiff-landlord even though he was in need of more accommodation than he was occupying.

( 2. ) THE two questions therefore an, whether are inference of mala fide from a set of factual findings is a mixed question of fact and law or is one of pure fact; in the former case it will be justiciable in second appeal and in the latter not. Secondly, whether it can be held that the landlord has acced mala fide by showing a predilection to accommodation in the first floor in prefer