R. N. Prasad, J.

1. The defendant has filed this revision application against the judgment and decree dated 5.6.90 passed in Title Eviction Suit no.2 of 1989, whereby. the court decreed the suit on the ground of personal necessity.

2. The case of this plaintiff opposite party is that the defendant petitioner was inducted tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.350/-. He advanced Rs.17.000/- on the condition that in case he fails to pay the rent the opposite party would get the rent adjusted from the said advance deposit. The petitioner did not pay the rent from 1.8.84, i. e. , the date of the tenancy and asked the opposite parly to adjust the rent from the said advance deposit. The plaintif opposite party were doing business jointly with their brothers but they did not want to continue their business jointly and hence they are in need of the suit premises for starting a business of tailoring in the suit premises.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the opposite party is not in bona fide need of the suit premises. They have many vacant shops which can satisfy the need of the opposite party. They want to evict the petitioner from the suit premises only with a view to let out the s