Short Note : 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for eviction filed only on the ground contained in section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (here-in-after called the Act). The plaintiff has been unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Hence this further appeal. 2. The plaintiff and his brothers jointly owned the suit accommodation which is non-residential in nature. The defendant was a tenant in that accommodation when an oral partition was effected between the plaintiff and his brothers on 1-8-1967 as a result of which the suit accommodation fell to the plaintiff's share The list Ex. P-1 dated 23-8-1967 was thereafter prepared only to mention the prosperities which fell to the share of the different persons. This document which has been found proved by the first appellate Court admittedly shows that the suit accommodation fell to the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed eviction of the defendant from the suit accommodation on the ground that the same was needed by the plaintiff for starting a separate business of tailoring which at present he was carrying on jointly with his brother in a rented accommodation. The defendant denied the plaintiff's alleged need and claimed that the partition was bogus. It was contended that prior to the alleged partition a suit had been filed by the plaintiff and his brothers which had been dismissed on 14-10-1967 and that obviously led to this story of partition. According to the defendant, the plaintiff's claim was false. 3. The trial Court negatived the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff to the District Court, the decree has been affirmed even though some of the finding of the trial Court have been reversed, It has been held by the first appellate Court that the partition between the plaintiff and his brothers was duly proved and the effect thereof was that the defendant became the tenant of the plaintiff alone. However, the first appellate Court then proceeded to hold that the alleged bona fide need of the plaintiff was not proved since the plaintiff was carrying on his joint business in another premises with his brother. On this basis, dismissal of the suit by the trial Court was upheld. However, the first appellate Court then proceeded to hold that the alleged bona fide need of the plaintiff was not proved since the plaintiff was carrying on his joint business in another premises with his brother. On this basis, dismissal of the suit by the trial Court was upheld. Held: Shri V. S. Dabir, learned counsel for the appellate, contends that the first appellate Court's finding contained in paragraph 6 of its judgment negativing the plaintiff's bonafide need is patently erroneous because the claim has been rejected merely on the ground that the plaintiff is carrying on business jointly with his brother in another accommodation which is admittedly not that of the plaintiff. This argument has to be accepted. It is nobody's case that the plaintiff has any other accommodation of his own in the same city for the purpose of his business. Even though it is not very clear whether the tailoring shop run jointly by the plaintiff and his brother is located in a rented accommodation or that belonging to the plaintiff's brother, yet there is no dispute and it is also obvious that the accommodation in which the joint, business is run is definitely not that of the plaintiff. This being so, the fact that the plaintiff was carrying on joint business with his brother in some accommodation riot belonging to him in the same city was no ground in law to reject the plaintiff's claim, that accommodation admittedly not belonging to the plaintiff himself, This fact, on the other hand, supports the plaintiff's case and shows that his need to be genuine. Since that is the only reason for rejecting the plaintiff's claim, that finding is vitiated since it is contrary to the requirements of clause (f) sub-section (I) of section 12 of the Act. On the facts not in dispute and those found by the first appellate Court, decree for eviction of the defendant on the ground contained in clause (f) must follow. Appeal allowed.