JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a defendants second appeal. He was a tenant of a shop in which he was carrying on cloth business. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant on 13th December 1963 on the allegation that he bona fide required the shop for starting his own cloth business and that he had no other alternative accommodation to be utilised for that purpose. The suit was contested. Among other things, the bona fide need of the plaintiff for starting the business was also contested. It was alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff had served him with a notice dated 9th February 1963 for enhancement of rent with effect from 30 days after the service of notice. Since the notice was served on him on 12th February 1963, the enhancement would have come into effect from 15th March 1963. The defendant, however, replied by notice dated 13th April 1963 (Exh. D-1) that the plaintiff was not entitled to increase the rent and that, therefore, he was not prepared to pay the increase. A fresh notice dated 20th May terminating the tenancy was served by the plaintiff alleging that he needed the shop for his own purpose. Thereafter, the present suit was filed. ( 2. ) THE trial Court found that the plaintiff was unable to prove his bona fide need for starting a cloth shop and consequently dismissed the suit for ejectment. The lower appellate Court has, however, decreed the suit. ( 3. ) IN second appeal the question raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant is that upon the facts found by the lower appellate Court the inference that the landlord had a bona fide need cannot be drawn. ( 4. ) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. The points on which an inference of bona fide need are to be drawn are that the plaintiff gave a notice in February 1963 demanding an enhancement in rent. If the plaintiff had intended to get possession over the shop in order to start his own business, there was no point in enhancing the rent of the defendant. The defendant gave a reply in April 1963 that he was not prepared to pay the enhanced rent. Within a month thereof, that is on 20th May 1963, the plaintiff formed an intention of starting his own business. The defendant gave a reply in April 1963 that he was not prepared to pay the enhanced rent. Within a month thereof, that is on 20th May 1963, the plaintiff formed an intention of starting his own business. Although it is said that the plaintiffs father used to do business some time ago, this intention of the plaintiff to start his own business was not very likely as it was not there when enhancement of rent was asked for. ( 5. ) IN favour of the plaintiff it has been found that he was an ex-zamindar an after abolition of zamindari he had lost much of his income He was also doing money lending business which was hit by the Moneylenders Act and other legislations. Consequently, the income of the plaintiff had been reduced. But that by itself does not indicate that he had formed an intention of doing cloth business which not only required that he should have the leisure or the inclination to do it but which also required that he should have had the necessary means to do it. In order to show his intention the plaintiff should have proved that he had the necessary capital to start the business. The plaintiff did not give any evidence on that point. The trial Court, therefore, found that he had no capital to start the business. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contended that this was a matter on which the plaintiff should have been asked in cross-examination. I am unable to agree. It was for the plaintiff to prove that he had the necessary capital to start the business. This was one of the important circumstances which he should have proved to the satisfaction of the trial Court. If the plaintiff failed to do that, it was no business of the defendant to bring that out in cross-examination. ( 6. ) THUS, there are two important factors against the plaintiff. The service of a notice enhancing the rent indicated that he had no intention of starting a business of his own. The plaintiff also did not prove that he had the necessary capital to start the business. These are important circumstances which the lower appellate Court completely ignored in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had a bona fide need of the shop to start his own business. The plaintiff also did not prove that he had the necessary capital to start the business. These are important circumstances which the lower appellate Court completely ignored in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had a bona fide need of the shop to start his own business. The lower appellate Court has merely considered the loss of proprietary rights and the loss of income from money lending business and on that basis it has assumed that the need of the plaintiff was bona fide. The conclusion of the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained as it did not consider all the relevant circumstances which were taken into account by the trial Court. ( 7. ) THE result is that this appeal is allowed. The decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court restored. Parties will bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed.