( 1 ) THE appellant is the landlady who filed an eviction petition against the respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit shop to enable her sons to run embroidery business therein. It was the case of the appellant that the eldest son of the appellant was running his business of embroidery in a rented premises measuring 4 x 4 and that her other son was also unemployed. It was asserted that the suit shop measuring 10 x 15 was bona fide and genuinely required to enable her eldest son to shift the embroidery business because he was under threat of eviction from the rented premises where he was carrying on the embroidery business. The trial court after recording evidence of the parties allowed the application and directed eviction of the respondent. The High court in revision reversed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the eviction petition.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) IT is an admitted case of the parties that during the pendency of the proceedings in the trial court, a shop adjacent to the demised premises, also measuring 10 x 15 was vacated by one Shri Sukumaran. The appellant did not amend the pleadings to assert that the