JUDGMENT T.S. Doabia, J. 1. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below holding that a relationship of tenant and landlord exist between the predecessor of the present appellant and the respondent landlord. The need of the respondent landlord was found to be established in terms of section 12(1)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The claim of the landlord that there was sub-letting by the tenant was negatived. It is against the above findings, the tenant has preferred this second appeal. The facts in brief be noticed as under : 2. It was the case of the respondent landlord that one Brundavan Lal Gupta son of Raghunath Prasad was inducted as a tenant in pursuance of a rent note dated 1st of August, 1976. This is exhibit P/4. The plaintiff wanted the premises in terms of section 12(1)(f). The need projected by him was that the premises are required by his son Ashok Kumar. This Ashok Kumar had obtained degree of M.Com. He was unable to find source of livelihood. He was said to be unemployed. He accordingly wanted to set-up his son in a trade. The son was keen to start a general store in the premises said to be in the occupation of tenant. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has concluded that there exist relationship of landlord and tenant. It is also concluded that need in terms of section 12(1)(f) stand established. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued. - (i) That, Mahesh Prasad is not the landlord; (ii) That, the need of Ashok Kumar the son of the landlord has not been established. So far as the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, it be seen that there was a family partition between Mahesh Prasad and his brothers. A decree in this regard was passed in Civil Suit 3A of 1976 by a civil judge Class 2 Shivpuri. This is dated 6th of July 1976. The plan indicates the portion which has fallen to the share of Mahesh Prasad. This plan is exhibit D/3. After the aforementioned decree was passed, a rent note was executed. This is on 1st of August, 1976. This is duly signed by the tenant. This is dated 6th of July 1976. The plan indicates the portion which has fallen to the share of Mahesh Prasad. This plan is exhibit D/3. After the aforementioned decree was passed, a rent note was executed. This is on 1st of August, 1976. This is duly signed by the tenant. If this be the position then the tenant is estopped from contending that Mahesh Prasad is not the landlord. Apart from this, after the writing of Rent Note Mahesh Prasad has been receiving the rent. The counter parts of the receipt bearing the signatures of Damodar Das s/o Brundavan Das are there on the record. These are Exhibits P-5 to P-19. Thus the finding recorded by the Court below that Mahesh Prasad is the owner of the premises and he had let the premises to Brundavan Das is affirmed. 4. The question vis-a-vis need of the landlord may also be examined. He has stated that the premises are required for his son Ashok Kumar. This Ashok Kumar is having the Master's degree in Commerce. He has not been able to find any employment. The desire of his father to settle his son in the business is normal. The business is general trade. It is for this purpose the premises are required. The argument raised by the learned counsel for appellants is that Ashok Kumar is helping his father who is having 'Halwai' shop. Witnesses have been produced by the tenant. These witnesses have stated that Ashok Kumar does sit and assist his father in shop to be run by him. 5. In Mattu Lal v. Radhey Lal, 1974 Rent Control Reporter 441, it was pointed out that mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough but there should be an element of need and the landlord must show that he genuinely required the accommodation. When the need can be said to be only a desire and when it is genuinely required, cannot be tested on the criteria of the absolute necessity. The meaning of bona fide requirement was considered in S.N. Datta v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, 1984(1) ARC 113, as follows : "Mere desire or absolute need or necessity are both it has been held, erroneous approaches in this behalf, vide Janki Pd. v. IInd Additional District Judge, 1980 (UP) RCC 602. The meaning of bona fide requirement was considered in S.N. Datta v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, 1984(1) ARC 113, as follows : "Mere desire or absolute need or necessity are both it has been held, erroneous approaches in this behalf, vide Janki Pd. v. IInd Additional District Judge, 1980 (UP) RCC 602. The word 'bona fide' means genuinely, sincerely, i.e., in good faith in contradiction to mala fide. A Full Bench of this Court construed this to mean to genuinely or 'in good faith' and conveying an idea of absence of any intent to deceive, vide Chandra Kumar Sah v. District Judge, Varanasi, 1976 RCR 274; AIR 1976 Alld 328; 1977 ARC 142 (FB). It will not be bona fide requirement of the landlord if release is sought for an ulterior purpose or fanciful whim, vide Dr. Sita Ram Gandhi v. District Judge, Meerut, 1978(2) All India RCJ 326; Smt. Kamla Ahuja v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut, 1981 ARC371." 6. In Vindilal v. Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Ltd. Guna, 1994(2) Rent Control Reporter 386 in para 18 it was observed as : "In the present case as noticed above, it has been brought on the record that the landlord wants to start his business at Guna. He was non suited as the Court below came to this conclusion that he was unable to specify as to when and what business he would start. As pointed out above the legal position is clear that eviction can be sought in contemplation of anticipated need. A tenant need not wait till the actual need arises. The need and the eviction may not coincide. In contemplation of starting his business the landlord could seek eviction. It has been brought on the record that the requirement of the landlord genuine. There is no other impediment in the grant of relief to the landlord." 7. It is not necessary that the need for starting business should exist on the date of the suit and the plaintiff can file a suit in respect of his requirement which is to arise in near future. This view was expressed by this Court in Hemraj Nima v. Rajnarayan, 1980 MPRCJ (NOC) 65. 8. I am of the view that merely because, the son is assisting his father would not be a ground to not to permit him to have independent business. Ashok Kumar was aged 20 years. This view was expressed by this Court in Hemraj Nima v. Rajnarayan, 1980 MPRCJ (NOC) 65. 8. I am of the view that merely because, the son is assisting his father would not be a ground to not to permit him to have independent business. Ashok Kumar was aged 20 years. He has not been able to obtain any job in spite of the fact that he possesses a master's degree of Commerce. 9. Accordingly I am of the opinion that the Court below has committed no error in concluding that the need as envisaged by section 12(1)(f) stands established. This appeal is found to be without merit and is dismissed with cost. Cost is Rs. 500/-. 10. The landlord has preferred cross objections vis-a-vis the non grant of relief under section 12(1)(f) of the Act. 11. These objections are not being pressed. These are dismissed as having not been pressed. 12. The appellant is granted two months time to vacate. This is subject to the conditions that he would deposit upto date rent and would also give an undertaking that he would hand over the vacant possession of shop to the landlord. Let the undertaking be given to the trial Court within a period of two weeks. This appeal is dismissed as indicated above.