JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the tenant-appellant. 2. Perused the record. 3. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings holding the need of the landlords in respect of the accommodation in dispute to be bona fide, genuine and pressing. It has further been concurrently found that the landlords have no other suitable alternative accommodation for satisfying their need. The ground envisaged under Section 12 (1) (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, has been found to have been established. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings returned by the two Courts below in favour of the landlords. These findings are based on an appraisal of evidence on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the extent of the accommodation, the number of family members of the plaintiffs, their ages, their status and also the nature of the accommodation which was disclosed to be the alternative accommodation, its extent, situation and the distance, the findings returned in favour of the plaintiffs-landlords by the two Courts below cannot be taken to be suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify an interference therein by this Court while exercising the limited jurisdiction envisaged under Section 100 C.P.C.. 6. It may further be noticed that the Apex Court in its decision in the case of. Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, Civil Appeal No. 4166 of 1999 decided on 30-7-1999 = A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2507 had clarified that a requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra-distinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. It was also indicated that the Judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest and if the answer be in the positive, the need is bona fide. Once the Court is satisfied that the bonafides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the Court. The Apex Court had made it clear that the Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the Court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, it was pointed out that the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against. 7. The provision contained in Section 12 (1) (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, secures a right in favour of the landlord to get the premises let out to a tenant evicted on the ground that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. 8. In the present case, the facts and circumstances as brought on record justify the conclusions reached by the two Courts below. 9. The Apex Court in its decision in the case of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 1998 (8) SCC 119 , had observed that when the landlord shows a prima facie case a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide is available to be drawn indicating further that it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. 10. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the facts found and established on the record, no such substantial question of law arises in this appeal which may justify consideration by this Court. 11. This appeal is clearly devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C..