( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the tenants against the decree of the lower appellate Court confirming the decree of the trial Court for ejectment.

( 2 ) THE house in question, of which the defendants are the tenants, or subtenants, was purchased by the plaintiff-firm under a registered sale-deed dated 22-9-1959 from Mulla Mohsin Ali, resident of Bhopal. On the date of the purchase. Zawar hussain (defendant No. 4) was in occupation of the house on a monthly rent of Rs. 28/8/ -. The plaintiff's case was that after the plaintiff-firm purchased the house, the lease in favour of the defendant No. 4 was determined by mutual settlement as a result of which the possession of the first floor of the house was given to the plaintiff-firm, while the premises in question, that is, the shop on the ground floor was leased out to the defendants 1 to 3 from 1-1-1960 at the instance of the defendant No. 4 on a monthly rent of Rs. 101/ -. It is alleged that the defendants 2 and 3 are partners of the defendant No. 1 M/s. Ziaul Hasan Qurban Hussain. The defendants 1 to 3 paid rent in pursuance of the said settlement for some time but thereafter they stopped the payment. The plaintiff firm came to know that the defendants 5 to 9 were being inducted in the suit premises as sub-tenants by the defendants 1 to 3 and hence they protested against it by sending a telegraphic notice and also by postal notice. Ultimately, the tenancy of the defendants 1 to 3 was determined by a notice dated 31-10-1963 with effect from the expiry of the tenancy month ending 31-12-1963. The plaintiff-firm thereafter filed the suit for ejectment of the defendants on the ground that the premises were bona fide required by the plaintiff-firm for its own business, as the firm did not own any premises of its own in the city of Bhopal. The further ground urged was that the plaintiff-firm was entitled to eject the defendants, as they had sub-let the premises to the defendants 5 to 9 without the assent of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE trial Court found that the bona fide need of the plaintiff was not established, but the plaintiff's suit was decreed on the ground that the defendants had sub-let the premises. The first appellate Court, however, found that both the grounds, namely, that of bone fide need as well as the ground of subletting were proved and hence decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendants. The defendants have, therefore, preferred this second appeal.

( 4 ) SHRI Dube, learned counsel for the appellants, drew my attention to paragraph 12 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court where it is observed :

"it is true that the plaintiff has stated that he has no intention of vacating the premises which are in his occupation, but, that fact would not by itself debar him from occupying his own premises for continuing his own business. "

Shri Dube urged that in order to secure ejectment of the tenant it is not enough to show that the landlord has no other accommodation of his own within the city, but it must, also be shown that he is in bona fide heed of the accommodation. Once it is admitted by the plaintiff that he had no intention of vacating the premises, where the business was being carried on, the conclusion is inevitable that his need was not bona fide. (After examining the evidence and the particular portion of the deposition of P. W. 1, it was held that the lower appellate court was wrong in making the above observation. Then the Judge also holds that there is no merit in the defence contention that defendants 5 to 9 were in occupation as tenants from before the purchase of the premises by the plaintiff, Judgment continues.)

( 5 ) SHRI Dube, however, urged that even if the defendants failed to prove that they were tenants of the predecessor of the plaintiff ,and that they were continued to be the tenants under the new agreement, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that they were sub-tenants of the defendants 1 to 3 and that they were not occupyi