There was evidence to warrant a finding that “the landlord... [sought] to recover possession in good faith for use and occupancy of... [her]self” (St. 1970, c. 863, § 3; compare St. 1970, c. 842, § 9 [a] [8]), and the judge’s implied finding to that effect was not clearly erroneous. The tenant’s contentions concerning alleged legal deficiencies in the landlord’s proof amount in fact to nothing more than an argument that the judge should have made a contrary finding.

Judgments affirmed.