S.P. Khare, J.

1. This is a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Arguments on the question of admission heard.

2. It has been held by the first appellate Court after reversal of the decree of the trial Court that the suit accommodation is not required bonafide by the plaintiff No. 2 for the purpose of starting the business "in general goods" of his son Lalchand (P.W. 2) and he has reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city for this purpose. It is an admitted fact that during the pendency of the appeal the plaintiffs have got actual possession of an accommodation just behind the shop from which the defendant is sought to be evicted. That alternative accommodation in possession of the plaintiffs consists of two big halls and two rooms. There are two openings on the main road from that accommodation. The width of those openings is less than the width of the shop in possession of the defendant. In the original plaint the plaintiffs did not disclose the nature of the business which Lalchand (P.W. 2) wanted to carry on in the suit accommodation. At the time of the evidence it was specifically stated by Lalchand (P.W. 2) that he want