JUDGMENT : R.S. Jha, J. 1. Heard Shri Arvind Chouksey, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. 2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.7.2014 passed by the District Judge, Betul in Civil Appeal No. 06- A/2012 whereby the judgment and decree dated 4.10.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 21-A/10 by the Civil Judge Class-I, Betul has been affirmed and confirmed and a decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 has been passed against the appellant. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord filed a suit for eviction against the appellant who is in occupation of Plot no.2, Nazul Sheet No. 12 Kothi Bazar, Lalli Chowk Betul as his tenant. The suit was filed claiming eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement for opening a jewellery shop. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding regarding bonafide need of the respondent/plaintiff and have decreed the suit. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the courts below have failed to take note of the fact that the respondent/plaintiff was owner of five shops which are situated adjacent to each other and during the pendency of the appeal one shop had been vacated which was again let out by the respondent/plaintiff for opening a shoe shop which fact indicated that he had no bonafide requirement for the shop in question for opening a jewellery shop. Had it been so, he would have opened the jewellery shop, in the shop, vacant possession of which was received by him during the pendency of the appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that the finding recorded by both the courts below is perverse, specifically in view of the statement of respondent/plaintiff Ravindra Gothi (PW.1) in paragraphs 21, 22, 35, 36 and 39 of his cross examination wherein he has stated that another shop which had become vacant during the pendency of the appeal was also suitable for the purposes of opening a jewellery shop. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it is observed that the court below has specifically taken into consideration the statement of the plaintiff in paragraphs 14 to 24. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it is observed that the court below has specifically taken into consideration the statement of the plaintiff in paragraphs 14 to 24. From a perusal of paragraphs 21, 22, 35, 36 and 39 of the deposition of plaintiff/respondent, Ravindra Kothi (PW.1), it is further clear that in response to a specific query being put to him in paragraph 21, he has specifically stated that the other shop which was vacated during the pendency of the appeal was not suitable for opening a jewellery shop. In subsequent paragraphs which have been relied upon by the appellant, the plaintiff/respondent has stated that the other shop was vacated during the pendency of the appeal but was let out for purposes of opening a shoe shop as he had decided to open a jewellery shop in the disputed shop. It is also clear that the court below has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Kailash Chandra Trivedi Vs. Punjab National Bank, 2000 (2) JLJ 379 . This court in the aforesaid cases as well as in the decision rendered in Second Appeal No. 1240/2012, Premchand Vs. Narendra Kumar, decided on 15-3-2013, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Prem Singh and others V. Birbal and others, (2006) 5 SCC 353 has held that the landlord is entitled to choose where he should carry on his business and it is not for the courts to dictate to the landlord as to where he should open or start his business. The court has further held that it is settled law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter once he has established his bonafide need. 7. It is also observed that the present case is one where the landlord has genuinely and rightly explained that the alternative accommodation available to him is not suitable for opening a jewellery shop and the courts below have recorded a finding in favour of the landlord in that regard and have decreed the suit. The courts below have recorded a concurrent finding in this regard against the appellant which does not suffer from any perversity or material irregularity warranting interference of this Court. The courts below have recorded a concurrent finding in this regard against the appellant which does not suffer from any perversity or material irregularity warranting interference of this Court. It is settled law that mere possibility of different conclusion does not give rise to a substantial question of law in the second appeal. 8. In the circumstances, I do not find any substantial question of law arising for adjudication in the present appeal. The appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed.