( 1 ) THIS revision application is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Bhavnagar allowing Regular Civil Appeal No. 73 of 1967 and dismissing the plaintiffs suit for possession with costs.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision application briefly stated are as under :the present petitioner sued the opponent to recover possession of the suit premises on the ground that he required the suit shop reasonably and bona fide for his personal occupation as the adjoining shop which was in his possession was not sufficient for his business.

( 3 ) THE opponent-defendant was occupying the suit shop on the monthly rent of Rs. 7. 00. According to the petitioner-plaintiff he wanted to start a medical store in the suit shop and therefore he served the defendanttenant with a notice terminating his tenancy and as he failed to hand over possession the present suit was filed. The opponent-defendant by his written statement Ex. 9 resisted the suit. He submitted that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for the personal occupation that he was an old man and was not in a position to do any business that he had made out a false case in order to recover possession from him. According to the defendant he was occupying the suit shop for the last 35 years for the purpose of his Kandoi business and if he was required to vacate the same be would be put to greater hardship. The learned trial Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit and ordered the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff on or before 1st July 1967. Against the said judgment an appeal was preferred in the district court which was allowed by the learned District Judge Bhavnagar and hence this revision application by the original plaintiff.

( 4 ) MR. . J. M. Thakore learned Advocate General appearing with Mr. P. V. Hathi for the petitioner urged that in the instant case the following facts were proved from the evidence on record:1. That the petitioner resided with his grand son Bhimji; 2. That Bhimji was running his medical store in a rented shop just opposite to the suit shop. 3. That the petitioner is attending to the business of the medical store owned by Bhimji. 4. That the licensing authority did not grant licence on the ground that adjoining shop in possession of the petitioner was not sufficient for a medical store. 5. That the petitioner received Rs. 7/per month as rent of the suit shop while his grand son pays Rs. 25/per month in the rented shop. The learned Advocate General urged that merely because the landlords son was separate from him it cannot be said that the grand son who was residing with him at the time of the suit was not a member of the family. He therefore urged that in order to consider the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord it can be taken into consideration the bona fide and reasonable requirement of any member of the family unit. Taking this fact into consideration Mr. Thakore urged that when the grand son who was running a medical store and was not able to obtain a licence because his shop was found to be small by the licensing authority it cannot be said that the requirement of the present landlord who is the grand-father was not genuine. He therefore submitted that the view taken by the learned District Judge was clearly wrong. In support of his submissions he referred to the case of firm of Mohanlal Narottmadas and another v. Bechardas Khusaldas and others 8 G. L. R. 620 wherein it was observed :"when members of a family live together and look upon themselves as a unit the court is entitled to consider the requirement of any one or more of such members as that of the landlord who is ejecting the tenant. It will in such a case make no difference whether such requirement is for the purposes of residence or of business. The words "for occupation by himself" occurring in sec. 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rent Control Act cannot be constru