JUDGMENT 1. This is landlord's second appeal against the reversing judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Biora, District Rajgarh in regular Civil Appeal No. 42-A/03. 2. Appeal was admitted for final hearing on 16.8.2004 on the following substantial question of law: "Has the first appellate Court erred in disregarding the ground of bona fide requirement on irrelevant consideration?" 3. Facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal in brief are as under. Appellants filed an eviction suit on the allegation that they are the owner of building situated on Mukherjee Road in the main market of Biora. On the ground floor of the suit building, the respondent is running a shop on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 325/-. Appellants set up the bona fide need of Daud Ahmed, major son of appellant No. I for starting grocery business from the suit shop. It was alleged that the appellants had no other reasonable suitable non-residential accommodation of their own except the suit shop to satisfy the need of Daud Ahmed. The respondent contested the suit and in the written statement denied all material allegations including the bona fide need of Daud Ahmed for starting grocery business in the suit shop. On the basis of pleadings and issues stuck by the trial Court, parties adduced evidence. Learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellants were able to establish their case of the bona fide need of Daud Ahmed and accordingly passed a decree for eviction under section 12 (1) (t) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The judgment and decree was challenged by the respondent herein in first appeal. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. Hence this second appeal on the above mentioned substantial question of law. 4. Shri Chazed, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and decree suffers from perversity inasmuch as the lower appellate Court had ignored the relevant evidence and has passed the judgment and decree purely on surmises. It is in this context he submitted that a tenant cannot restrict the choice of the landlord either for starting or carrying on a business. It is in this context he submitted that a tenant cannot restrict the choice of the landlord either for starting or carrying on a business. He further submitted that if the element of bona fide need is established, then the landlord cannot be denied the accommodation let out to a tenant as the landlord is the sole and the best judge of his need and requirement. Per contra, Shri Garg learned senior counsel appearing for respondent submitted that lower appellate Court while deciding first appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, is the final Court of facts and the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court is, therefore, binding on this Court. He further contended that while exercising the jurisdiction of second appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. [ 2000 (1) JLJ 186 ]. Shri Garg further submitted that looking to the admissions of PW I and PW 2 Asgar Ali and Daud Ahmed, lower appellate Court has rightly held that the bona fide need was not established. In this view of the matter, according to him, lower appellate Court has rightly reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Lastly it was submitted that in case this appeal is allowed, then at least one year's time may be granted to the respondent to vacate the suit premises. 5. After having heard learned counsel for parties at length and going through the records of the Courts below, in the opinion of this Court, this appeal must be allowed. 6. The findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence. Plaintiffs had come out with the case of bona fide need of Daud Ahmed for starting grocery business in Biora. It is not in dispute that other than the suit accommodation the appellants had no other reasonably suitable accommodation of their own in Biora. The findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence. Plaintiffs had come out with the case of bona fide need of Daud Ahmed for starting grocery business in Biora. It is not in dispute that other than the suit accommodation the appellants had no other reasonably suitable accommodation of their own in Biora. Lower appellate Court has been unnecessary swayed away by the fact that father of Daud Ahmed is carrying on transport business from rented premises in Biora and also has a branch office at Bhopal, therefore, in all likelihood, Daud Ahmed who is helping his father in the transport business, shall take over it sooner or later hence the need of Daud Ahmed is not bona fide. Said finding is based upon purely on conjectures not supported by the evidence available on record. No doubt, the requirement of proof beyond doubt is not there in civil cases, but while considering reasonableness and objectivity of the need, things cannot stretched beyond a certain limit. If the son is providing a helping hand in the business of his father that by itself would not go against him for starting his own business. It is also not relevant to consider that past experience of person would not negative the plea of bona fide requirement. Time and again it has been held by the Supreme Court that to establish the bona fide need, a landlord must prove that the need is genuine and not mere pretense to evict the tenant. Lower appellate Court was also not correct in drawing a presumption that the grocery business would not be successful from the suit accommodation just because two other grocery shops in the vicinity were closed down. There is no evidence why other two grocery shops were closed down yet lower appellate Court has drawn a presumption that the grocery business would not be profitable in the area. Thus, it is clear that findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are not sustainable in law as they are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence and if findings are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence, then such a finding is open to interfere in the second appeal. 7. Thus, it is clear that findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are not sustainable in law as they are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence and if findings are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence, then such a finding is open to interfere in the second appeal. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is hereby restored. In the result, the suit filed by the appellants for eviction stands decreed under section 12 (1) (t) of the Act. 8. Now coming to the last submission, Shri Chazed, submitted that one year time prayed for vacating the premises, is rather unreasonable, therefore, some reasonable time, as may be deemed fit by the Court, be granted to the respondent to vacate and hand over the premises. Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, a period of six months would be sufficient and reasonable time for the respondent to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit accommodation. In other words, the respondent shall hand over the possession of the suit accommodation on or before 31st March, 2008 provided he files an undertaking to this effect in the trial Court within four weeks from today with the further undertaking that he shall continue to pay or deposit a sum equivalent to the monthly amount of rent till he hands over the possession of the suit accommodation to the appellants. Any breach on part of respondent, would entitle the appellants to put the decree in execution without waiting for 31.3.2008 and obtain possession of the suit accommodation in accordance with law. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed however without any order as to costs.