Short Note : 1. The Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the defendant applicant on the ground that the suit accommodation was bona fide required for carrying on the business by plaintiff No. l's son Satyanarayan. The trial Court found that the plaintiff did not bona fide require the suit premises but wanted to enhance the rent. In appeal, the First Additional District Judge decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit. The learned counsel for the appellant had in the forefront put an agreement that the lower appellate Court had ignored from consideration the evidence of defendant's witnesses Abdul Ajij Khan (DW.1), Abdul Hamid (DW.2) and Abdul Aziz (DW3) from which it is established that the plaintiff wanted to enhance the rent to which the defendant having not agree the suit had been filed on a made up ground of bona fide requirement. Held : It cannot be grain said that the evidence of these witnesses will have a bearing on the finding of bona fide requirement. It is a material evidence and if found reliable might tilt the balance in favour of the defendant on the question of bona fide requirement. In view of this matter, the lower appellate Court has committed an error of law inasmuch as it has ignored the aforesaid material evidence. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is not necessary to consider the other arguments as the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside only on this ground and the case deserves to be sent back to the lower appellate Court for a fresh decision. Appeal allowed.