JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the landlady. She sought eviction of the respondent-tenant from a small shop because her son desired to use that shop himself. It was also pleaded that, comparatively, less hardship could be caused to the tenant. On the aspect of bona fide requirement, the son was not examined. The landlady's husband deposed and stated that his son was running a watch and radio repair business in the adjacent shop for which employees were required and they had to sit in the landlady's residential premises in the same building. The trial court held in the landlady's favour, but its finding was reversed by the appellate court. The landlady filed a writ petition in the High Court. It was rejected, principally on the ground that the landlady had not examined herself nor her son for whose requirement the shop was sought. The evidence that had been led was that of the landlady's husband, (sic) whose requirement the shop was sought. The evidence that had been led was that of the landlady's husband, who was a medical practitioner, and he could not adequately depose to facts which were essentially within the knowledge of the son. 2. Mr. Ganguli, learned senior counsel for the appellant-landlady, laid stress on the smallness of the accommodation in the shop already in the possession of the son and submitted that it was evident therefrom that no further evidence could possibly b said to be necessary. 3. In our view, what is involved is, basically, an appreciation of evidence by the courts below and we should not ordinarily interfere. It is patent that the landlady's son would have been the best person to depose to the nature of his requirement and it be material that he has not done so. 4. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.