JUDGMENT : This is tenant's appeal. The landlady's application under Section 23A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the appellant as the premises were bonafide needed by her was dismissed. One of the reasons which weighed with the Rent Control Authority was that the premises having been let out for non-residential purposes the application under Section 23A was not maintainable. The High Court after appreciation of evidence recorded the finding that premises were let out for residential purposes. It perused the agreement entered between parties and came to conclusion that it did not establish the claim of appellant that premises were let out for non- residential purpose. The finding whether premises were let out for residential or non-residential purpose is a finding of fact. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that even assuming that premises were let out for residential purpose, the application was liable to be dismissed as the Section further required that the landlord should not be possessed of reasonably suitable accommodation. He urged that there being another house in 11th Line, Itarsi, and in any case accommodation being available at ground floor the landlady was possessed of reasonably suitable accommodation and her application under Section 23A was liable to be dismissed. The legal position as urged cannot be doubted. But even the Rent Control Officer did not reject the application for this reason. However, we would have remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh decision on this aspect, but it has come on record that the appellant-tenant is an affluent person who owns more than one building and is getting nearly Rs. 4000/- as rent. Therefore, we refrain from exercising our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. But parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.