JUDGMENT This is tenant's appeal. He was unsuccessful in both the Courts below. The respondent landlord filed a suit seeking eviction of the appellant on the following grounds : (i) that, he was in arrears of rent; and (ii) that, the premises were bona fide required for the genuine need of his son Rajendra Kumar. On both the counts, the trial Court recorded findings in favour of the landlord. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant has argued that the finding with regard to arrears of rent has not been properly recorded. According to him, some rent was tendered in an earlier suit filed by Balram against Kesharbai. According to him, this suit bears No. 176-A/80. The learned counsel for the appellant was asked to indicate any document which may indicate that any rent was deposited in the previous litigation. After going through the record, he was unable to substantiate his argument. As such, the findings of fact recorded by the Court below with regard to non-payment of rent and that the appellant was in arrears of rent, cannot be said to be the findings which required interference by this Court in second appeal. The second ground on which eviction was ordered was bona fide need of the landlady's son namely Rajendra Kumar. It was found that the son was carrying on business of manufacturing steel boxes and other steel implements. He wanted to set-up his own business. Taking note of this requirement, the Court below recorded a finding that the premises were bona fide required by the landlady for the business of her son. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that husband of respondent landlady got some premises vacated and, therefore, the present tenant should not be evicted. The argument is without merit. The premises which were got vacated by the husband of the landlady were meant to be used by him. This would not debar the landlady to get the premises evicted for the business of her son. The need of the son and the father cannot be put at par. In this view of the matter, this appeal is without merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The learned counsel for the respondent landlady has stated that possession of the disputed premises had already been taken by the landlady. As such, no further direction need be given.