JUDGMENT :

Markandey Katju, J.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 6.10.2005 in Second Appeal No. 107 of 2004.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The Landlord-appellant filed a suit for eviction of the tenant from the shop in question on the ground that he needs the shop for setting up the business of his two sons viz., Nischal Upadhyay and Bhaskar Upadhyay, and there is no other suitable accommodation for the said purpose.

4. The facts have been mentioned in the judgments of the courts below and hence we are not repeating the same here.

5. The plaintiffs/appellants filed the suit for eviction against the tenant stating, inter alia, that the shop in dispute (which is on the ground floor) is required for starting the business of Nischal Upadhyay and Bhaskar Upadhyay, major sons of plaintiff No. 1. The trial court by judgment dated 8.10.2002 found that the need of the landlord was bonafide and decreed the suit.

6. Before the trial court the tenants had taken the plea that the plaintiffs have alternative accommodation which is a hall over the suit shop, and hence the sons of plaintiff No. 1