JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2019 passed by learned 13th Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Appeal No.158/2018 whereby the Lower Appellate Court allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff has reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court in judgment and decree dated 22.10.2018 passed in Civil Suit No.17-A/2016 and directed that the plaintiff would be entitled to the possession of the suit property after two months from the date of judgment. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Civil Suit, C.S. No.17-A/2016 under sections 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (c) and 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the appellant/defendant on the grounds that the defendant has not paid arrears of rent; and bona fide need of his personal use and to run his business on the said premises and he has no alternative suitable accommodation. 3. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint contending inter alia, that the plaintiff has not issued any demand notice for arrears of rent and as he is ready and willing to deposit the rent from June, 2015 to June, 2016, he has deposited the same through bank draft in Court. So far as bona fide need of the appellant/plaintiff is concerned, it is contended that the plaintiff himself is serving in Chhattisgarh and residing there with family, hence he does not need suit accommodation for himself. 4. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 22.10.2018 dismissed the suit holding that respondent/plaintiff failed to establish his bona fide need; default of payment on the part of the defendant and also he could not prove the fact of creation of any kind of nuisance or using the suit premises contrary to the agreement. 5. The respondent/plaintiff challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree in appeal, wherein the lower appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.3.2019 has allowed the appeal setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff under section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that lower appellate Court committed a grave error in reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that lower appellate Court committed a grave error in reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff could not established his bona fide need of the suit accommodation and plaintiff was also unable to establish the factum of violation of terms of the rent agreement. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The lower appellate Court after scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, the lower appellate Court has held that son of the plaintiff is having MBA degree and is unemployed and the appellant has no other shop at Rewa except the suit accommodation, hence, the plaintiff was able to prove his bona fide need. Lower appellate Court allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff, directed the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit accommodation to the plaintiff within a period of two months. 8. The findings recorded by the lower appellate Court with regard to the bona fide need of the plaintiff for suit accommodation are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. The findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based on no evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dislodge the aforesaid findings of fact. 9. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well defined by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and others [ (2009) 5 SCC 264 ], Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and others [(2011) 7 SCC 189], Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and antoher [ (2012) 8 SCC 148 ], D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa [ (2011) 1 SCC 158 ] Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal [ (2012) 7 SCC 288 ] and Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare [ (2013) 7 SCC 173 ]. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant appeal. 11. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant appeal. 11. At this juncture, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that some reasonable time may be granted to him to vacate the premises. 12. In view of the above, as the appellant is carrying on his business on the suit premises, it is deemed fit to grant some reasonable time to him to vacate the suit premises. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with the direction that the appellant/defendant shall handover the vacant possession of the suit accommodation to the plaintiff/respondent within a period of three months from today.