( 1. ) DEFENDANT aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Courts below has filed present appeal. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff/ respondent bona fidely needed the suit accommodation for business of his major son Kundanlal.

( 2. ) THIS appeal was admitted on 2-8-2000 on following substantial questions of law :-

" (i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that it did not matter to the case of the respondent if he did not in the witness box say in so many words that he required the suit shop bona fide for opening a shop of his son Kundanlal ? (ii) Whether the Court below failed to see that it was the requirement of the respondent Hajarilal and not that of his son which gave him right to evict the appellant and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent to say so in the witness box, failing which, it can be presumed that there is no bona fide requirement ? (iii) Whether the evidence led by the appellant in respect of alternative accommodation is in accord with the amendment made in Paragraph 5-A of the plaint stating that the alternative accommodation belonged to Chandra Kumar exclusively ? (iv) Whether the Lower Appellate Court failed to see that in absence of any plea made by the respondent in his plaint that the alternative accommodation is not sufficient for the requirement of his son Kundanlal the respondent could not have given this shop to his grand son Neeraj Kumar son of Chandra Kumar ?"

( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff/respondent has not stated in his statement the words "bona fide "without which decree for eviction could not be passed. It is necessary for the plaintiff to state the words "bona fide" in his statement. He submits that during the pendency of the suit plaintiff got a shop but without pleading non-suitability of the aforesaid shop, suit ought to have been dismissed. He further submits that the plaintiff in place of starting business of Kundanlal has wrongly started business of Neeraj Kumar, grand son in the shop vacated by one Shri Shastri. This fact shows that in fact plaintiff has no bona fide necessity for the suit accommodation and has filed present suit mala fide.

( 4. ) TO appreciate the aforesaid contentions of the appellant it is necessary to look into the case of the parties.

( 5. ) RESPONDENT filed suit for eviction on 11-5-91 seeking eviction of the appellant on the ground that the suit shop is bona fidely needed by the plaintiff for starting business to his major son Kundanlal, who is presently unemployed and for this purpose plaintiff is having no other alternative suitable accommodation. Appellant contested the suit on the ground that plaintiff has no bona fide necessity and in fact the purpose of plaintiff is to get vacated the suit accommodation mala fidely and suit was prayed to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/ -. Trial Court after framing the issues, recorded the evidence and decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff bona fidely needed suit shop for business of his son Kundanlal and defendant is tenant at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. So far as the contention of the appellant that plaintiff filed suit to harass the appellant was negatived. On these findings the Trial Court decreed the suit of respondent, but on other grounds dismissed the suit. Against the judgment of Trial Court, both the parties filed separate appeal. During the pendency of appeal, appellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, by which it was pleaded that during the pendency of suit one tenant has vacated one adjoining shop in which Kundanlal, son of plaintiff, has started business. While the aforesaid contention was contested by the respondent who has stated that in the said shop Neeraj Kumar has started business of provisional goods and plaintiff has no interest in the said shop. Considering the rival contention of the parties, Appellate Court by order dated 25th July, 97 remanded the matter to