( 1 ) THESE two cross revision applications are filed respectively by the original plaintiff and by the original defendants 1 and 3 against the decree passed by the City Civil Court giving partial possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and to that extent modifying toe trial Courts decree which was for possession of the entire suit premises. The short facts which have given rise to these revision applications are as under:-THE plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The plaintiff is the manufacturer and dealer in steel furniture and steel goods. The plaintiff has a factory in the interior of Ghanchis Wadi near Pankor Naka where the steel goods and furniture are manufactured. As the plaintiff was in need of premises on the main road of Pankor Naka to open a show room and a sales office for its steel goods and furniture the plaintiff firm purchased the suit house in an auction sale held on 26th October 1966. The final sale certificate was issued on 25th April 1957 and thus the plaintiff purchased the suit premises from the Custodian of Evacuee Properties for a consideration of Rs. 35 250 The plaintiffs partner Chimanlal is now residing on the first floor and the second floor of the suit premises. On the ground floor of the suit house the present suit premises namely the shop is situated of which the defendant No. 1 firm of Mohanlal Nathubhai and the two defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who form the said coparcenary are the tenants. The defendants are doing the business of Kharadi preparing wooden articles like cradles wooden boxes bed-stands etc. As the plaintiff needed the suit shop for the show room and the sales office the tenancy of the defendants was terminated by a notice at Exhibit 81 dated 1st July 1957 and the defendants were asked to hand over vacant possession of the suit shop. As the defendants did not comply with the said request toe plaintiff filed the present suit to recover possession of the entire suit shop on the ground of bona fide and reasonable personal requirement for the aforesaid purpose. The defendants contended that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for their own occupation and that greater hardship would be caused to them if a decree for possession was passed. The trial Court namely the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad held that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for its personal use and occupation and that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if no decree for possession of the entire premises was passed. The trial Court accordingly decreed the plaintiffs suit on 5th May 1961 Defendants 1 and 3 namely the joint family firm of Mohanlal Nathubhai and Ranchhodlal Mohanlal filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge at Ahmedabad. The appeal stood transferred to the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. When it came up for hearing the learned Judge passed the order Exhibit 17 permitting additional evidence as the same was required on the question as to whether no hardship would be caused to either party if a decree in respect of only a part of the suit premises was passed. Both the parties led additional evidence and after considering the entire evidence the learned City Civil Court Judge held that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for personal occupation. On the question of hardship the learned Judge held that no hardship would be caused to either party if possession of only a part of the suit premises admeasuring 9 x 20 was given to plaintiff and the staircase in the corridor 6 x 20 was removed and placed in the three feet additional space allotted to the plaintiff on the west of the portion decreed to the plaintiff. In view of the said finding the appellate Court modified the trial Courts decree. It is this decree which is challenged in both these cross revision applications.

( 2 ) MR. Vakil for the tenants defendants 1 and 3 raised the foll