1. This is a second appeal by the defendants-tenants, against the decree for their ejectment from the suit premises on the ground that the plaintiff-landlord No.4-genuinely requires the accommodation for starting his own business and that he is not in occupation of any other accommodation in the city of Satna for that purpose.

2. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit, inter alia, holding-

(1) That the plaintiffs-respondents were the sole landlords of the defendants-tenants in respect of the suit premises

(2) That the tenancy of the defendants-tenants was validly terminated by a notice to quit expiring with the end of the month of their tenancy, which was from the 1st to the 30th or 31st of the English calendar month.

(3) That the defendants-tenants had, without the written permission of the landlords, made construction as have materially altered the accommodation to the detriment of the landlords' interest within the meaning of section 4 (c) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955.

(4) That the plaintiff - landlords genuinely required the non residential accommodation in question for starting the medical practice of plaintiff-landlord No.4, and that they were