As per case facts, Plaintiffs filed an eviction suit against the Appellant who occupied premises for business and residence. Plaintiff No.2 claimed bona fide requirement for her law practice, while ... alleging the Appellant defaulted on rent. The Appellant argued the lease was invalid and denied default or bona fide need. The Trial Court ruled for the Plaintiffs, leading to this appeal. The question arose whether a valid jural relationship existed, if the second floor was truly needed for the Plaintiff's bona fide use, and if the Appellant genuinely defaulted on rent from February 2020. Finally, the Court confirmed a jural relationship, upheld the bona fide requirement, emphasizing that tenants cannot dictate landlord's property use, and found the Appellant had indeed defaulted on rent. The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court's judgment was largely affirmed with modifications regarding interest and specific vacation date.