1. This is landlord's second appeal against the reversing judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Biora, District Rajgarh in regular Civil Appeal No. 42-A/03.

2. Appeal was admitted for final hearing on 16.8.2004 on the following substantial question of law:

"Has the first appellate Court erred in disregarding the ground of bona fide requirement on irrelevant consideration?"

3. Facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal in brief are as under. Appellants filed an eviction suit on the allegation that they are the owner of building situated on Mukherjee Road in the main market of Biora. On the ground floor of the suit building, the respondent is running a shop on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 325/-. Appellants set up the bona fide need of Daud Ahmed, major son of appellant No. I for starting grocery business from the suit shop. It was alleged that the appellants had no other reasonable suitable non-residential accommodation of their own except the suit shop to satisfy the need of Daud Ahmed. The respondent contested the suit and in the written statement denied all material allegations including the bona fide need of Daud Ahmed for starting grocery business in the suit shop. On the basis of pleadings and issues stuck by the trial Court, parties adduced evidence. Learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellants were able to establish their case of the bona fide need of Daud Ahmed and accordingly passed a decree for eviction under section 12 (1) (t) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The judgment and decree was challenged by the respondent herein in first appeal. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. Hence this second appeal on the above mentioned substantial question of law.

4. Shri Chazed, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and decree suffers from perversity inasmuch as the lower appellate Court had ignored the relevant evidence and has passed the judgment and decree purely on surmises. It is in this context he submitted that a tenant cannot restrict the choice of the landlord either for starting or carrying on a business. He further submitted that if the element of bona fide need is established, then the landlord cannot be denied the accommodation let out to a tenant as the landlord is the sole and the best judge of his need and requirement. Per contra, Shri Garg learned senior counsel appearing for respondent submitted that lower appellate Court while deciding first appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, is the final Court of facts and the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court is, therefore, binding on this Court. He further contended that while exercising the jurisdiction of second appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. [2000 (1) JLJ 186]. Shri Garg further submitted that looking to the admissions of PW I and PW 2 Asgar Ali and Daud Ahmed, lower appellate Court has rightly held that the bona fide need was not established. In this view of the matter, according to him, lower appellate Court has rightly reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Lastly it was submitted that in case this appeal is allowed, then at least one year's time may be granted to the respondent to vacate the suit premises.

5. After having heard learned counsel for parties at length and going through the records of the Courts below, in the opinion of this Court, this appeal must be allowed.

6. The findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence. Plaintiffs had come out with the case of bona fide need of Daud Ahmed for starting