( 1. ) THIS second appeal is at the instance of the defendant tenant against whom a decree for eviction and arrears of rent had been passed by both the Courts below.

( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the suit accommodation was let out for non-residential purposes to Hardayal, father of the defendant shambhudayal. Hardayal died in the year 196? leaving behind three heirs, two sons namely Shambhudayal the present defendant, his brother Pooranlal and a minor daughter Genda Bai. It was also not disputed that Pooranlal lived at some other village, i. e. Kondagaon and the defendant was running the shop in the suit premises.

( 3. ) THE plaintiff required the suit accommodation for shifting his cycle shop, which he was running in a rented premises. It was also contended by the plaintiff that be had no other reasonably suitable accommodation for keeping the shop.

( 4. ) THE case of the defendant was that the plaintiff has various open plots in his occupation and if his need for shifting his cycle shop from the rented premises would have been genuine, he would have constructed a shop on the open plot. As regards the maintainability of the suit, it was contended by the defendant that after the death of his father Hardayal, the defendant himself, his brother Pooranlal and his minor sister Genda Bai, all inherited the monthly tenancy as tenants-in-common in accordance with the provisions of section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, and, therefore, they being not joint tenants, the tenancy could not be determined by serving quit notice only on Shambhudayal, the defendant alone, and no decree for eviction could be claimed in a suit in which Pooranlal and Genda Bai were not impleaded as parties. It was also not disputed that the quit notice was served only on shambhudayal and it is also apparent that Pooranlal, the brother and Genda bai, minor sister of the defendant have not been impleaded as parties.

( 5. ) THE Courts below have decreed the suit for eviction by holding that the need of the plaintiff, to shift the cycle shop from the rented premises, was genuine and the contention of the defendant that because the plaintiff had various open plots, he should have constructed a shop for the purpose, was not liable to be accepted. The Courts below were also of the opinion that after the death of Hardayal, his two sons and one minor daugher were joint tenants and the landlord was entitled to determine the tenancy by serving a quit notice even on one of the joint tenants and the suit against one of the joint tenants in actual occupation and control of the premises was also maintainable without impleading Pooranlal (his brother) and Genda Bai (his minor sister)

( 6. ) THE finding regarding genuine need and bona fide requirement of the suit premises could not be challenged before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant found it difficult to point out any such matter to indicate that the aforesaid finding of fact was perverse in any manner. On the contrary, in view of the admitted position that the plaintiff was having his shop in a rented premises and wanted to shift his cycle shop to the suit accommodation belonging to him, the case of genuine need was apparently made out. It could not be rejected merely on the ground that the plaintiff has some open plots on which he could have constructed a shop for his own purposes. As nothing could be shown that the plaintiff was in occupation of some other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation in the town, the issue regarding genuine need and bona fide requirement for the purposes of his business, as contemplated under section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was rightly decided and is binding on the parties for the purposes of this second appeal.

( 7. ) THE judgments and decrees of the Courts below were challenged mainly on the following grounds :-

(i) That after the death of Hardayal, the present defendant Shambhudayal, his brother Pooranlal,