Civil Appeal No 3117 of 1984
From the Judgment and order dated 16121983 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Second Appeal No 166 of 1980
Dr Shankar Ghosh V Gambhir section Sarin and SK Gambhir for the Appellant
TS Krishnamurti Iyer and Shakil Ahmad Syed for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No 166 of 1980
By the aforesaid judgment the High Court has reversed the findings of the first appellate court
The respondent landlord had filed a suit for eviction in September 1977 inter alia under Section 121e of the MP Accommodation Control Act 1961 hereinafter called the Act  alleging that the premises in question was required bona fide for the requirement of the landlord
It was stated in the written statement filed by the petitioner tenant that the respondent landlord had already in his occupation sufficient accommodation and the same was sufficient to meet his requirement and that the suit was filed in order to extract the higher rent
The trial court decreed the suit
The appellant went up in appeal
The Additional District Judge Indore which was the first appellate court allowed the appeal of the appellant tenant and set aside the decree passed by the trial 46 court under section 121e of the Act
The first appellate court looked into the evidence and came to the conclusion that the need in respect of suit accommodation was not bonafide one
It was the case of the landlord that three rooms were in his possession in the ground floor and one tin shed which the landlord was formerly using as a Garage for his car but which was no longer with him
Landlord was suffering from Harnia and one of the wives was also suffering from Asthama
After analysing the evidence the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the evidence was not such that the plaintiff landlord found it difficult in climbing the stairs and there was no danger of heart attack as he had stated
So far as the wife s illness was concerned this also the first appellate court did not accept the case on the analysis of the evidence
It was observed by the first appellate court that the wife of the landlord did not come to the witness box to say that she was suffering from Asthama
Nor the Doctor who was stated to be the family Doctor affirmed that fact
It may however be mentioned that the landlord himself is a Doctor
The landlord had stated that six rooms were in his possession and he explained how six rooms were being used and the accommodation with his wife in the ground floor comprises of three rooms for her residence kitchen and store and a tin shed for storing fuel etc
In the aforesaid background the first appellate court came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord was not reasonable nor bonafide
It is a well settled law in this branch that the need of the landlord must be reasonable and must be bona fide in order to evict the tenant on the relevant provisions of the various Acts
Whether in a particular situation the need was reasonable or bona fide must be judged from the objective view point not merely by assertion or denial of the parties
The learned Judge of the first appellate court applying the tests which appeared to him to be objective tests found that such need is not bona fide or reasonable
He accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction
The landlord went up in appeal before the High Court in Second Appeal
The High Court came to the conclusion that the first appellate court had drawn wrong inferences and there was no proper appreciation of facts and furthermore the High Court was of the opinion that all the facts had not been borne in mind by the first appellate court
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and restored the order of the trial court and ordered eviction
47 The tenant has come up here
It is well settled law that in Second Appeal the scope of interference by the High Court is limited
This Court in the case of Mattulal vs Radhe Lal  had occasion to consider the scope of the Second Appeal under the Madhya Pradesh Act
There this Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in Second Appeal in reversing the decision of the first appellate court
This Court further observed that the issues whether the respondent required the shop in question for the purpose of starting new business as a dealer in iron and steel materials and if so whether his requirement was bona fide were both questions of fact
Their determination did not involve the application of any legal principles to the facts established in the evidence
This Court further held in that case that the findings of the first appellate court on these issues were no doubt inferences from other basic facts but that did not alter the character of these findings and they remained findings of facts and therefore the conclusion of the first appellate court that the respondent did not bona fide require a shop premises in that case for the purpose of starting new business as a dealer in iron and steel materials represented findings of facts and could not be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal unless it was shown that in reaching it a mistake of law was committed or that it was based on no evidence or was such as no reasonable man could reach
Emphasis supplied
We are prima facie inclined to take the view that it might have been possible in this case to hold that the High Court was in error in interfering with the findings of the first appellate court but in the facts of this case we need not rest our decision on that basis because subsequent to the decision of the High Court the first wife of the landlord had died and three rooms which were in her occupation have become vacant
In that view of the matter and taking into cautious consideration to all the subsequent events it must be held that there was no more bona fide need of the landlord to evict the tenant of the premises in question
This appeal must therefore be allowed and the order of eviction set aside
The appeal is accordingly allowed
The parties will bear their own costs
48 This however will not prevent the parties from exchanging their position by mutual arrangements or agreement by the tenant going upstairs in three rooms now in occupation of the landlord and the landlord getting three more rooms in the ground floor in the occupation of the tenant
NPV Appeal allowed


Summary:
 The petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the General Court Martial under the and lodged in Civil Jails
They sought a set off of their pre trial detention against the sentence of imprisonment
The jail and army authorities rejected their claim
They moved this Court for relief by writ petitions
Dismissing the petitions the Court  HELD The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced under the 
The is a special enactment containing elaborate procedure for the trial of the persons covered thereunder
In view of the various provisions in the  the petitioners cannot call into aid section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
They may be entitled to remissions as provided in the jail manuals but not a set off under sec
The benefit of section 428 cannot be claimed by a person convicted and sentenced by a Court Martial under the  as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Singh vs The Asstt
Superintendent The High Courts of Delhi and Madras have also held likewise
But in Subramonian vs OC Armoured Static Workshop contrary view has been taken by the Kerala High Court which cannot be said to have laid down the law correctly
42G H 43A C