ORDER Leave granted. 2. In this appeal, filed by the landlord the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 242/88 is under challenge. The respondent (dead represented by LRs.) was the tenant. 3. The suit was instituted by the appellant seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises in question was required by him for starting his business. The trial court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit for eviction. The High Court in Second Appeal reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the judgment of the trial court. 4. At the commencement of his argument Sri U.N. Bachawat learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the question of law formulated in paragraph one of the judgment of the High Court which reads: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the first appellate court erred in law in finding that the suit accommodation was required bona fide by the plaintiff-respondent for starting his business of general provision?" 5. The learned counsel submitted that the question as formulated is not a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. According to him the second appeal should have been dismissed summarily on the ground that no substantial question of law was involved in the case. 6. Mr. V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the question of bona fide requirement is a substantial question of law that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case. He, however, fairly accepted that the question has not been properly formulated by the High Court. On perusal of the judgment of the High Court under challenge and on consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be subserved if the judgment under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the question and to dispose of the second appeal afresh. The High Court will consider whether any substantial question of law arises in the appeal and if satisfied formulate the question and dispose of the appeal on merits according to law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The High Court will consider whether any substantial question of law arises in the appeal and if satisfied formulate the question and dispose of the appeal on merits according to law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 1-9-1997 in second appeal No. 242 of 1988 is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in the manner noted above. Since the suit was instituted in 1979 and the second appeal as filed in 1988, in our view, it is just and appropriate for the High Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Hence we request the High Court to do so, within six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this Order. Status quo regarding possession of the property as prevailing on date shall be maintained by the parties till the disposal of the appeal. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. **************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Kamal Chandra Jain v. Pyarelal Agarwal (Dead) by LRs., 2001(6) Supreme 271 : 2001 (3) CCC 238 00027