JUDGMENT 1. Appellants-plaintiffs have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2003 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Appeal No. 51/2001 reversing the judgment and decree dated 8.3.2001 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 68-A/2000. 2. This appeal has been admitted for final hearing vide order dated 22.7.2003 on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court which had decreed the suit holding that ground under section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is made out? (2) Whether lower appellate Court was justified in non-suiting the plaintiff by reversing the decree passed by the trial Court by holding that since the sons for whom the need is set up were not examined by' the plaintiff and hence adverse inference be drawn against the plaintiff? 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide need for the plaintiff No.1 himself and his two sons for the purpose of business of Cutlery and General Store. The plaintiffs further pleaded that there is no suitable accommodation avdlable to them for the aforesaid purpose and his two sons were unemployed. The defendants denied the claims of the plaintiffs. . 4. It is a admitted fact that the defendants have been doing the business in the suit premises. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff No. 1 died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The plaintiff No.2 Aabaas Ali deposed on oath that he along with three sisters have got the ownership right of the suit house comprising 11 ft. x 43 ft. in a partition between his family. He further stated that he has two sons Saifuddin and Safdar Abbas and he needed the suit premises for their business for Cutlery and General Store. His elder son Wakil has been driving an auto riksha. Another witness Imamuddin (PW 2) stated that Mr. Abbas Bhai had been a employee of a Katlari Kohinoor Store 15 years before. Saifuddin is unemployed. Same fact has been stated by another witness Rajendra Kumar (PW 3). He also stated that both the sons of the plaintiff No.2 are unemployed. 5. Another witness Imamuddin (PW 2) stated that Mr. Abbas Bhai had been a employee of a Katlari Kohinoor Store 15 years before. Saifuddin is unemployed. Same fact has been stated by another witness Rajendra Kumar (PW 3). He also stated that both the sons of the plaintiff No.2 are unemployed. 5. The defendants examined one Gopa1chandra Maheshwari, who stated that he has been made a party unnecessarily and three sons of the plaintiff No.2 have been doing separate business. Same facts have been stated by another witness O.P. Kakad and also by the DW 3. 6. The trial Court on the basis of appreciation of evidence held that there is a bona fide need of the plaintiff No. 2 for himself and his two sons for running the business and they have no other alternative accommodation for the aforesaid purpose and decreed the suit. 7. The defendants filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court. The appellate Court after reappreciation of the evidence has held that Mr. Abbasali in his statement has stated that he told the defendants that the suit accommodation was needed for the business of his two sons Saifuddin and Safdar. They have not been examined and there are discrepancies with regard to statement and pleadings of the plaintiff No. 2, somewhere he stated that the suit premises was needed for his two sons somewhere he stated that the suit premises was needed for three sons. On the aforesaid grounds the first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by holding that bona fide need of the plaintiff No.2 has not been established. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is perverse and the first appellate Court did not consider the evidence in right perspective. 9. Contrary to this learned senior counsel Shri Chafekar for the respondents has stated that the findings recorded by the first appellate Court are as per law and bona fide need is a question of fact as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1974 SC 1576, hence the aforesaid findings of fact cannot be reversed in the second appeal. 10. 10. The plaintiffs in para 9 of the plaint specifically pleaded that the suit accommodation was needed for himself and his son for the purpose of starting the business of Cutlery and General Store. The plaint was amended subsequently vide order dated 13.10.1996 and it has specifically been pleaded that the suit accommodation was needed for the purpose of starting his own business of the plaintiff No.2 and his two sons Saifuddin and Safdar Ali. In his deposition the plaintiff No.2 Abbas Ali has stated that I told the defendant that the shop is needed for my sons and name of my one son is Saiffudin and name of another is Safdar Abbas Ali. He needed the shop for starting the business of Cutlery (General Store and Hosiery). Other two witnesses, who have been examined by the plaintiffs have supported the case of the plaintiffs PW 2 and PW 3 clearly stated that two sons of the plaintiff No.2 are unemployed and they have no other alternative accommodation except the suit premises. 11. DW 1 stated the fact that the two sons of the plaintiff No.2 are employed but have not filed any documents in support of his statement. On the basis of above evidence after appreciation of the evidence the trial Court decreed the suit. Unfortunately, the first appellate Court taking some technical view of the statement of the plaintiff No.2, PW 1 that he stated that he told the defendant that the suit accommodation was needed for the business of his sons, set aside the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. 12. In my opinion, the first appellate Court completely misconceived himself when reading the evidence and pleadings of the plaintiff No.2 in toto. The first appellate Court completely ignored the principle with regard to appreciation of evidence and also the principle with regard to considering the bona fide need of the landlord. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Rai Tanwani and another v. Uttamchand reported in 2004 (8) SCC 490 on relying the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Swarup Gupta v. Dr. Maheshchandra Gupta reported in [ 1999 (6) SCC 222 ] has held as under : "Recently, in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Maheshchandra Gupta reported in [ 1999 (6) SCC 222 ] has held as under : "Recently, in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta this Court in a detailed judgment, dealing with this aspect, analysed the concept of bona fide requirement and said that the requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant refers to a state of mind prevailing with the landlord. The only way of peeping into the mind of the landlord is an exercise undertaken by the judge of facts by placing himself in the armchair of the landlord and then posing a 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. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bona fide. We do not think that we can usefully add anything to the exposition flaw or requirement for self occupation than what has been already stated in the precedents." Same view has been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Atma S. Barela v. Mukhtyar Singh reported in [ (2003) 2 SCC 3 ]. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hajare v. Purshottam Tiwari reported in [ 2001 (3) SCC 179 ] held as under with regard to powers and duties of the first appellate Court in reversing the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court :-- "However, expression of general agreement with the findings in the judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage adopted by the appellate Court for shirking the duty cast on it. While writing a judgment of reversal the appellate Court must remain conscious of two principles. Firstly the findings of fact based on conflicting evidence arrived at by the trial Court must weigh with the appellate Court, more so when the findings on oral evidence recorded by the same Presiding Judge who authors the judgment. This does not mean that when an appeal lies on facts, the appellate Court is not competent to reverse a finding of facts, the appellate Court is not competent to reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the trial Judge. This does not mean that when an appeal lies on facts, the appellate Court is not competent to reverse a finding of facts, the appellate Court is not competent to reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the trial Judge. As a matter of law if the appraisal of the evidence by the trial Court suffes from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on conjectures and surmises the appellate Court is entitled to interfere with the findings of fact. "Secondly, while reversing a finding of fact the appellate Court must assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. An additional obligation has been cast on the first appellate Court by the scheme of the present section 100 substituted in the Code. The first appellate Court continues, as before, to be a final Court of facts; pure findings of fact remain immune from challenge before the High Court in second appeal. Now the first appellate Court is also a final Court of law even if erroneous may not be vulnerable before the High Court in second appeal because the jurisdiction of the High Court has now ceased to be available to correct the errors of law or the erroneous findings of the first appellate Court even on questions of law unless such question of law be a substantial one." 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Ramkubai v. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak and others reported in [ AIR 1999 SC 3089 ] has held that it is not essential for the landlord to enter into the witness box to support his case with regard to bona fide need. The evidence available in the case is sufficient to prove the bona fide need of the landlord, plaintiff No.2 and his sons. 15. Consequently, appeal of the appellant is hereby allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is restored.