( 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 f