JUDGMENT Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. 1. The instant second appeal is filed by defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2001 passed by the First Court of Additional District Judge, Howrah in title appeal No.103 of 2000 affirming the judgment and decree dated 27th April, 2000 and 16th May, 2000 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, 7th Court, Howrah in title suit No.13 of 1986. 2. Factual backdrop of this case is one Niranjan Bose being owner of premises No.160, 159/3 Mahendra Bhattacherjee Road inducted predecessor in interest of the present appellants as tenant in respect of one shop room at holding No. 160, Mahendra Bhattacherjee Road on monthly rental of Rs.60/- per month according to bengali calendar month. The original defendant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent since pous, 1935 B. S. The original plaintiff installed the supply of electricity in the suit room for his own use and occupation to start business in the name of “Santragachi Engineering Works”. The original plaintiff had cordial relation with the defendant and the plaintiff alleged he installed the meters in the name of defendant/tenant. Since the suit premises is reasonably required for his own use and occupation and also for building/rebuilding the original plaintiff tender notice of ejectment by registered post which was duly received by the defendant/tenant but he did not vacate the suit premises in spite of expiry of the dates stipulated in the notice. Therefore, plaintiff brought the suit for eviction and khas possession against the defendant/tenant. 3. The original tenant contested the suit by filing written statement with additional written statement denying all material allegations. Defendant/tenant categorically stated that the original plaintiff has sufficient accommodation and he has newly constructed room which is lying vacant. He also stated that he himself installed the electric meter in the suit room. It was also stated by him that the plaintiff demanded of rent of Rs.100/- per month instead of Rs.60/-. Since the defendant expressed his inability to pay the demanded rent the plaintiff brought the suit. The learned Court of first instance framed as many as six issues including the maintainability of the suit. It was also stated by him that the plaintiff demanded of rent of Rs.100/- per month instead of Rs.60/-. Since the defendant expressed his inability to pay the demanded rent the plaintiff brought the suit. The learned Court of first instance framed as many as six issues including the maintainability of the suit. The learned Court of first instance upon hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record pleased to hold that the suit is maintainable and the notice is ejectment legal and valid which was duly served upon the defendant. It was also held that the defendant is entitled to get protection under Section 17 (4) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act since the defendant in compliance of Court’s order deposited the current rent along with the arrear. It was further held that suit premises is reasonably required for own use and occupation of the plaintiff. Therefore, the learned Trial Court passed a decree of eviction and khas possession against the defendant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the plaintiff. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court defendant preferred first appeal before the First Court of Additional District Judge, Howrah and the appeal was numbered as title appeal No.103 of 2000. The First Appellate Court framed five points to the following effect:- “1. Whether the notice to quit is legal and valid and duly served upon the defendant? 2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent? 3. Whether the suit premises is required by the plaintiff for building and rebuilding? 4. Whether the suit premises is required by the plaintiff for building and rebuilding? 5. Whether the finding of the learned Court below is erroneous, improper and caused material irregularity which is liable to be set aside?” 5. Five points were taken together for consideration and taking decision. While considering the points formulated it was held by the First Appellate Court that the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property has not been challenged either in appeal or before the Trial Court. According to the First Appellate Court there is no dispute as regards landlord tenant relationship. It was held that the notice was duly served and a notice is also valid one. According to the First Appellate Court there is no dispute as regards landlord tenant relationship. It was held that the notice was duly served and a notice is also valid one. Learned Court also considered all the materials including the report submitted by the Commissioner which includes sketch map prepared at the time of holding local inspection. Learned First Appellate Court considered the entire aspect as well as the rooms available and rooms required and ultimately found that the present accommodation of the plaintiff landlord are not sufficient for habitation and, therefore, the suit premises is required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation and the requirements is bona fide. Accordingly Trial Court’s judgment and decree was affirmed and the first appeal was dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of both the Courts below the tenant/appellants filed this Second Appeal which is numbered as S.A. No.122 of 2002. The appeal was moved and the following questions of law were formulated: “For that the learned judge erred in not holding from the materials on record particularly the Commissioner’s Report, that the plaintiffs/respondents have sufficient accommodation and/or alternative suitable accommodation. For that the learned Judge erred on surmises and conjectures in holding that the plaintiff/respondent requires the suit premises for starting business of his son. For that the learned Judge erred in not holding that without production of any sanctioned building plan and sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiff has means to build and rebuild, the plaintiff is not entitled to any decree on the ground of requirement for building and rebuilding. For that the plaintiff having failed to prove that he has sufficient means to start a business, the learned Judge acted illegally in not holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his alleged requirement for starting any business. For that the learned Judge erred in decreeing the suit when the plaintiff failed to prove the reasonableness of his requirement and also in view of the fact that the learned Court did not come to any finding that the alleged requirement of the plaintiff cannot be reasonably fulfilled in premises No.159/3, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road, Howrah. For that the learned Judge erred in decreeing the suit when the plaintiff failed to prove the reasonableness of his requirement and also in view of the fact that the learned Court did not come to any finding that the alleged requirement of the plaintiff cannot be reasonably fulfilled in premises No.159/3, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road, Howrah. For that the learned Judge erred in not dismissing the suit when there is no finding that the said premises No.159/3 is in any way unsuitable, and there is not discussion on the question of unsuitability of the said premises No.159/3, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road, Howrah.” 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both the learned Court below failed to consider that the plaintiff/respondent do not have locus standi to maintain the suit and the plaintiff/respondent failed to prove that he does not have sufficient accommodation and further suit is not maintainable since the defendant tenant is occupying some portion as the tenant and some portion in other capacity. Learned Counsel also submitted that learned First Appellate Court while considering the point of reasonable requirement, decided that the suit premises is also reasonably required for building and re-building purpose. He submits that the suit be dismissed. However, after making all these submissions he prayed for time to file undertaking before this Court to the effect that the premises in question would be vacated after sometime. Appeal was adjourned from time to time so that proposed undertaking to vacate premises could be filed but ultimately nobody appeared no undertaking given and the appeal finally heard in their absence. 8. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff /respondent submitted that both the Courts below have found the plaintiff had a genuine and bona fide requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation. Out of seven issues framed before the Trial Court first one was maintainability which was not pressed by the appellant/defendant. Both the Courts found landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. Both the Courts after careful consideration of evidence on records, exhibits including Commissioner’s report found that plaintiff’s accommodation is not sufficient to accommodate all his family members. Learned Counsel submitted that these are all findings on the facts and this Hon’ble Court in second appeal jurisdiction should not reassess the same. He also submits judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Learned Counsel submitted that these are all findings on the facts and this Hon’ble Court in second appeal jurisdiction should not reassess the same. He also submits judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Learned Counsel submitted that on point of building and re-building the First Appellate Courts held that the plaintiff/respondent required the premises for building/rebuilding. According to him no point of law involved in this matter. Both the Courts arrived at the same conclusion on concurrent finding of facts which cannot be reassessed and altered at the second appeal stage. According to him the learned Trial Court below decreed the suit involving the original plaintiff being the predecessor in interest of the present respondents. First appeal was dismissed on concurrent finding of facts. According to him since this appeal do not involve any substantial question of law this Court should not interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Learned Counsel also cited three decisions reported in 2005 Vol. 10 SCC 169, 2005 Vol. 10 SCC 223 and 2001 Vol. 3 SCC 179 in support of his contentions. Learned Counsel submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 9. It is now well settled that the Second Appeal does not lie on the ground of erroneous findings of facts based on appreciation of relevant evidence. High Court should also not entertain it unless a substantial question of law is raised or the findings of the fact recorded by the courts below are perverse being based of no evidence or irrelevant material. It appears from the points formulated, being questions of law, are basically raised against the factual question whether the suit premises is reasonably required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation and whether such requirement is a bona fide requirement. It is on record that a local inspection was held in respect of the premises in question which are in occupation of the plaintiff and holding No.160, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road which is under occupation of the tenant and has been described as suit property. The report of the Commissioner is marked as Exbt. 15. Commissioner prepared his sketch map which is part of the Commissioner’s report. The report of the Commissioner is marked as Exbt. 15. Commissioner prepared his sketch map which is part of the Commissioner’s report. It is also evident from the report of the Commissioner that there are six rooms in holding No.159/3 and room Nos.1 and 5 were shown in the sketch map, are occupied as bed room. Room No.2 was found as dining room. Room No.3 is kitchen and room No.4 is latrine and privy. The Commissioner also found room No.6 made of brick wall with corcate sheet roof which is being used as godown. One covered space and one covered corridor have been shown in the sketch map. Although an argument was advanced by the tenants that the dining room is so specious, it can be easily used as bed room and covered space which has been shown in between room Nos.5 and 6 can be used as bed room. Room No.6 which has been shown in the sketch map as godown could be used as dining room. Accordingly by arrangement the plaintiff can use at least four rooms, dining room, kitchen, latrine, privy, etc. in holding No.159/3, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road. Therefore, according to the tenant sufficient accommodation is there and there is no necessity of suit premises for landlord’s own use and occupation. While considering the submissions made by the respective parties the learned Lower Appellate Court on careful scrutiny, found from evidence given by PW 2 as well as Commissioner’s report (Exbt. 15) along with sketch map showing that there are six rooms which have been numbered R-1 to R-6. It is evident from the sketch map of Commissioner’s report that R-1 and R-5 being used as bed room, R-2 is being used as dining room, R-3 and R-4 is being used as godown which is of brick wall, bamboo frame, C. I. Roof shed covered space and covered corridor. Therefore, the question arose whether covered space, covered corridor can be used as bed room. While considering this aspect of the matter the First Appellate Court after going through the report of the learned Commissioner as well as evidence of PW 2 found that it was never elicited in evidence either oral and documentary that save and except R-1 and R-5 there are other bed rooms in holding No.159/3, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road. While considering this aspect of the matter the First Appellate Court after going through the report of the learned Commissioner as well as evidence of PW 2 found that it was never elicited in evidence either oral and documentary that save and except R-1 and R-5 there are other bed rooms in holding No.159/3, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road. Considering the necessity of the plaintiff’s family it was held by the learned Court below that in a family one dining room, one kitchen, latrine and privy are separately required for habitation. Learned Court below also considered the number of the family members of the plaintiff consisting himself, his wife, his eldest son having wife and children, youngest son and the married daughter. According to both the Courts the family consists six members and at least three rooms are required for habitation of the plaintiff. Out of which one bed room is required for the plaintiff and his wife, another required room is required for the eldest son of the plaintiff who is residing with his family and children and another room is required for the youngest son of the plaintiff who is Civil Engineer. But it has not sufficiently proved that the covered space and covered corridor standing in holding No.159/3, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road, can be used for dwelling purpose. Similarly there is no whisper in the Commissioner’s report as well as in the sketch map that there are three bedrooms in 159/3. All the Courts below relied upon Commissioner’s report who is not interested person. Thus both the Courts below found there is genuine and bona fide requirement of the plaintiff/landlord. Both the learned Courts have came to a conclusion that the youngest son of the plaintiff who is a diploma holder Civil Engineer and unemployed will start his business in the suit premises, which is adjacent to Mahesh Bhattacharya Road. It was also held by the learned Court of first instance as well as the First Appellate Court that the suit premises is required for building/rebuilding purpose. It was concurrently found by both the learned Courts below that the accommodation of the plaintiff and his family members in holding No.159/3, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road is not sufficient and the suit premises is required for plaintiff starting a business of the plaintiff’s son who is Civil Engineer. It was concurrently found by both the learned Courts below that the accommodation of the plaintiff and his family members in holding No.159/3, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road is not sufficient and the suit premises is required for plaintiff starting a business of the plaintiff’s son who is Civil Engineer. It was also found that the defendant/tenant has dwelling house at holding No.161/2, Makardah Road which is 100 ft. away from the suit room. According to the First Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court youngest son of plaintiff being a Civil Engineer could not be able to start business for want of sufficient accommodation which in occupation of the defendant/tenant. Thus it was held that the suit premises is reasonably required for the plaintiff and also for the purpose of his youngest son. It was also held by the First Appellate Court that plaintiff’s requirement of thakur ghar/puja room and guest room could be satisfied by using covered corridor and covered space. It was also found by both Courts below that accommodation of plaintiff holding No.159/3 is not sufficient and at least one bed room is required to mitigate the problem of the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit premises is reasonably required by the plaintiff. Accordingly bona fide requirement of the plaintiff/landlord was proved beyond any doubt whatsoever. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of (Dinesh Kumar Vs. Yusuf Ali) reported in 2010 (12) SCC 740 specifically held while determining the eviction of the tenant an approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against. If the landlord whishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself and dwell in lesser premises so as to protect the tenant’s continued occupation in tenancy premises. However, the bona fide requirement of the landlord must be distinguished from a mere whim or fanciful desire. It must be manifested in actual need so as to convince the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The need should be bona fide and not arbitrary and the requirement pleaded and proved must neither be a pretext nor a ruse adopted by the landlord for evicting the tenant. Therefore, the Court is to decide whether there is bona fide need of the plaintiff or not. 11. The need should be bona fide and not arbitrary and the requirement pleaded and proved must neither be a pretext nor a ruse adopted by the landlord for evicting the tenant. Therefore, the Court is to decide whether there is bona fide need of the plaintiff or not. 11. In the instant case, I find both the Courts below found concurrently that the plaintiff do not have sufficient accommodation to accommodate his family members and the plaintiff have also bona fide requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation. I do not also find any perversity in the findings. However, the grounds formulated at the time of admission, although as question of law, are all factual questions which are all decided on evidence before the Trial Court as well as before First Appellate Court. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The department is directed to send back the Lower Court records with utmost expedition.