JUDGMENT For the appellants two main contentions were raised. Firstly that the need of Purshottam for wholesale business or semi-wholesale business in cloth was not really proved and the Courts below were wrong in holding so and secondly that when the tenant pleaded in the written-statement that in the year 1974 the landlord had obtained vacant possession of one room on first floor from M/s Namrata Textiles, his need was satisfied as the suit was filed on 22.8.1973. It was contended that the finding of bone fide need is vitiated because it was not arrived at by considering all aspects objectively and availability of alternate accommodation was not explained by the landlord by pleading its unsuitability. Coming to the first contention, the learned counsel for the appellants took me through the evidence of all the three witnesses of the plaintiff and that of tenant Brijmohan which related to the question of bona fide requirement. All this evidence was read verbatim in second appeal. This Court thought that even in second appeal the Court should be vigilant to see that a balance should be struck between the protection granted to the tenant under the Act and the right of the landlord to get the tenanted premises vacated on the ground under section 12 (1) (f) of the Act in the present case. The contention about non- objective conclusion as to proof of bona fide requirement has absolutely no merit. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court has considered in paras 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment all the material factors stated above which, go into the making of objective proof of bona fide requirement. It would be sheer repetition if all those factors are to be recapitulated over again in detail. Small discrepancies in evidence of Purshottam and Phoolchand as to who actually prepares bills in the cloth business at Biaora are really not consequential. The second major contention was that when the defendant pleaded in the written-statement in para 20 that the plaintiff did not occupy one room on the first floor when M/s Namrata Textiles vacated it, the plaintiff did not explain that this accommodation was not reasonably suitable for his wholesale or semi-wholesale cloth business. In this connection reference was made to evidence showing that couple of shops are doing business of cloth in wholesale and semi-wholesale in the locality on first floor. In this connection reference was made to evidence showing that couple of shops are doing business of cloth in wholesale and semi-wholesale in the locality on first floor. However, it was not brought on record as to what was the nature of accommodation, mode of access to that accommodation in those two cases so as to afford comparison with the one room on the first floor vacated by M/s Namrata Textiles and let to Hasanand Nichumal. It is to be seen that there is evidence on record from the side of the plaintiff about a narrow and inconvenient stair- case to this one room, its small size and its structural details showing why it would be unsuitable for semi-wholesale business in cloth. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court has considered this evidence in detail and in a sound manner in para 15 of the impugned judgment. The contention on behalf of the appellants that wholesale business would be carried on in the room on the first floor vacated by M/s Namrata Textiles because in such business goods are not to be stored nor displayed but the sale is by sample has no force because it is not the case of the landlord at all that Purshottam wanted to do wholesale business. The case of the plaintiff right from the inception in plaint is to start semi- wholesale business. It is in the evidence of both plaintiff as well as the witness of defendant Laxminarayan in para 7 that in whole salt; business, cloth bails are sold while in semi- wholesale business cloth bails are opened and then pieces of certain length (Thaan) are sold. This would clearly demonstrate that in semi-wholesale business of cloth goods will have to be stored and displayed and it was in this light that both Courts below and particularly the first appellate Court in para 15 of its judgment after considering the structural features of the room on the first floor came to the conclusion that such room would be unsuitable for semi-wholesale business in choth. Reference was made by appellant to the fact that Chaturbhuj das had re-let one shop in the year 1963-64 after he had decided to start practice as a lawyer. Reference was made by appellant to the fact that Chaturbhuj das had re-let one shop in the year 1963-64 after he had decided to start practice as a lawyer. This fact of the year 1963 has absolutely no bearing when Purshottam, son of Chaturbhuj das was born in 1955 and should have been about 8 years old in the year 1963, while the present suit was filed in 1973 for bona fide need of Purshottam to establish him in business in semi- wholesale in cloth. Learned counsel for the respondents was correct in contending that the defendant came with a defence that the landlord has filed this false suit with ulterior motive of enhancing rent; but there is no allegation of any demand for enhanced rent either in reply to the quit notice or even a word from the mouth of the defendant himself in that regard. In the aforesaid state of circumstances nothing has been shown to demonstrate how the finding of bona fide requirement reached by both Courts below was vitiated by mis-reading or non- reading of evidence. It is settled law that under section 100 C.P.C. interference in concurrent finding of fact is not permissible if the findings arc based on proper evidence. (See: Dr. Saroj Kumar Das's case: AIR 1987 SC 2131 ). AIR 1987 SC 248 distinguished. Appeal dismissed.