JUDGMENT 1. - This is a tenant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, confirming the decree of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 1 Jodhpur City, in a suit for ejectment. There is a concurrent finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff required the shop for his personal use and occupation and the requirement is reasonable and bonafide. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions, (1) that the Courts below in coming to the conclusion that the shop is required by the plaintiff for his personal use and occupation have ignored the fact that the plaintiff had on previous occasions also been asking the appellant to vacate the shop, but subsequently became satisfied when the rent was increased. Even after the present note executed he started asking the defendant to vacate the shop because he required it himself which is clear from the contention of the notice, and (2) that the rent-note was in favour of the plaintiff and his two sons, Murlidhar and Girdhari Lal and so tenancy could have been terminated by all the three and similarly the suit could have been instituted by all of them but the present case, the notice for terminating the tenancy was given by the plaintiff alone and similarly the suit has been filed by him alone. 3. So far as the first contention is concerned, both the Courts, after considering the evidence on record, have come to the finding that the shop was required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff for starting a hotel because as his present shop in which he was running a 'pan' shop was small. They have considered the evidence that the plaintiff also tried to run a hotel in the present 'pan' shop, but that have to be closed because there was no sufficient space in it. They have also considered the fact that one of his sons has attained majority and is 18 years of age and is sharing the business at the 'pan' shop. They also considered the evidence regarding the enhancement of rent produced by the defendant. Evidence was also produced that the plaintiff has obtained a licence from the municipality for running a hotel. Thus, on these facts, it cannot be said that the finding arrived at by the two Courts below is wrong. They also considered the evidence regarding the enhancement of rent produced by the defendant. Evidence was also produced that the plaintiff has obtained a licence from the municipality for running a hotel. Thus, on these facts, it cannot be said that the finding arrived at by the two Courts below is wrong. The finding of fact therefore, cannot be assailed in second appeal. 4. On the second point, it is correct that if there are landlords more than one, then the suit can be instituted by all of them. But in this case that general principle will not apply because the other two persons whose names appear in the rent note are the sons of Ramgopal plaintiff. It is also in evidence that one of them attained majority about the time the suit was instituted and he must have been a minor at the time the rent note was executed. It is also in evidence that his shop previously belonged to Ramgopal and his brother, but on a partition between them, it fell to the share of the plaintiff. Apart from the recitals of the rent-note which mentions the means of Girdharilal and Murlidhar, no evidence has been produced by the defendant to show that they are the co-owners of the property along with their father, the plaintiff. In the case of father and sons, there is a presumption under the Hindu Law that they are joint and similarly there is a presumption that the father is the Karta of the family and he represents the joint family. If it appears that the person instituting the suit is the Karta of the family, then it will be taken that he has filed the suit in his representative capacity, even though this fact is not stated in the plaint. So in view of these circumstances that Girdharilal and Murlidhar were the sons of the plaintiff, the lower Courts have rightly come to the conclusion that the present suit was filed by Ramgopal in his capacity as Karta of the joint family consisting of himself and his two sons. The notice given by Ramgopal alone for terminating the tenancy is also not bad for the same reason and was sufficient in law to terminate the tenancy. I, therefore, do not find any force in the appeal which is accordingly, dismissed with costs. 5. The notice given by Ramgopal alone for terminating the tenancy is also not bad for the same reason and was sufficient in law to terminate the tenancy. I, therefore, do not find any force in the appeal which is accordingly, dismissed with costs. 5. Learned counsel prays for leave to appeal which is rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******