A.P. SEN, J.

1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against a judgment and decree of the District Judge Raipur, dated 16th April 1971, affirming the judgment and decree of the IVth Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur, dated 29th June 1970, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction u/s 12 (i) (b) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

2. The relevant fact, in brief is as follows. The parties stand in the relation of landlord and tenant. The plaintiff firm styled as M/s Indian Mill Stores, Raipur is doing business of oil Engines, Pumps, Electric motors, Machineries, Pipes, Spare parts etc. at Ganjpara–Raipur in a rented house. The plaintiff-firm purchased a building at Ganjpara–Raipur consisting of 4 identical block of one room each of which the demised premises is one, by a registered sale deed dated 20.3.1965. The defendant who is in occupation of one of the blocks is running a tailoring shop under the name "Chauhan Tailoring Shop" attorned to the plaintiff on 1.5.1965 vide kiraya chithi Ex. P-2.

3. The plaintiff's case is that it is in bonafide need of the demised premises for continuing its business within the meaning of section 12 (1) (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, i.e. for shifting the business of the partnership, from the rented house to its own building of which the suit accommodation forms a part, alleging that the partnership firm has no other reasonable suitable non-residential accommodation of its own for their requirement in the town. It therefore, requires the entire building purchased by it for its business purposes and was filing suits for ejectment against all the tenants including the defendant. The plaintiff's case further is that the defendant had unlawfully sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of a part of the accommodation in his occupation and was earning profit thereby and was, therefore, liable to be evicted from the demised premises u/s 12 (1) (b) of the Act. The defendant contested the plaintiff's claim and denied that the plaintiff was in bonafide need of the demised premises, alleging that the plaintiff firm was already doing its business at its present site taken on lease, which is in the heart of the business locality since last so many years and has earned reputation and good-will in the market and, therefore, the alleged need was just a pretence to secure his eviction therefrom. He also denied that he had sub-let or assigned a part of the accommodation and pleaded that he had in fact, started a side business in partnership.

4. The Courts below have relied on the testimony of Narsi Bhai (P.W. 1) and found as a fact, that the plaintiff had established its bonafide need of the demised premises for continuing its business u/s 12 (1) (f) of the Act. The finding is based on appreciation of evidence and no other conclusion that the one reached by the Courts below is possible. The plaintiff firm has purchased the building for locating its business. The testimony of Narsi Bhai (P.W. 1) clearly shows that the plaintiff has filed separate suits against all the tenants and it is intended to pull down the intervening walls to convert the separate blocks into one accommodation as otherwise the business of the firm cannot be located in the building. The Courts below rightly relied on the testimony of Narsi Bhai (P.W. 1) and granted to the plaintiff a decree u/s 12 (1) (f) of the Act.

5. The question whether the plaintiff's need was bonafide or not was a matter of inference of fact to be drawn from other facts. The finding reached by the Courts below is based on appreciation of evidence in Mattulal vs. Radhe Lal, 1975 JLJ 1 = AIR 1974 SC 1596, their Lordships have reiterated their earlier view in T.B. Sarvate vs. Nemichand, 1965 JLJ 973 = 1966 MPLJ 26 (SC), that a finding as to whether the landlord does or does not bonafide require the premises for the purpose of starting or continuing his business is a finding of fact and unless it is shown tha