JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal by the landlord against the dismissal of the eviction suit filed by him against the respondent from the suit shop on the ground of genuine need. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the respondent is a tenant in respect of accommodations which form part of one building under two separate rent notes, Exs. P-1 and P-2. One accommodation in the front is used by the respondent as a hotel which carries the rent of Rs. 90/- per month. The other accommodation consisting of one-room, on the back of the house is used as kitchen for preparation of eatables for the hotel and carries the monthly rent of Rs. 225/ -. The appellant filed the suit on 15-7-1981 for eviction on the ground that he needed the accommodation used as hotel for starting a general stores shop for himself and that of his son, for which he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in the city. ( 3. ) THE respondnt opposed the appellants claim. He also raised an objection that both the accommodations, namely, one used for hotel and the other used for kitchen, arc part of one single tenancy and, therefore, the appellant cannot seek eviction from the portion of the suit accommodation alone. ( 4. ) THE trial Court held that the plaintiff proved his genuine need for suit accommodation for self and his son and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in the city. It was further held that the accommodation used as hotel and the other used as kitchen were demised under two distinct leases evidenced by Rent Notes Exs. P-1 and P-2. Therefore, a decree for eviction was passed against the respondent. ( 5. ) THE respondent-tenant filed an appeal under section % of the Code of Civil procedure, which was allowed on the finding that both the accommodations are part of the one and the same tenancy and if a decree is passed in respect of the suit accommodation where business of the hotel is carried on, the respondent will be deprived of beneficial user of the accommodation used as kitchen. Therefore, the lower appellate Court held that the suit for eviction from the suit accommodation only cannot be called bona fide. On this finding, the appeal Court dismissed the suit. Therefore, the lower appellate Court held that the suit for eviction from the suit accommodation only cannot be called bona fide. On this finding, the appeal Court dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff landlord. After the appeal was reserved for judgment, the appellant filed an application for amendment of plaint I. A. No. 2459/86 claiming ejectment from the kitchen also. ( 6. ) THE appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether the finding of the Lower Court about the joint tenancy is. perverse being based on no legal evidence? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case a decree for ejectment could not have been passed when the landlord claimed and proved the requirement of the shop which was let out on a separate rent-note? ( 7. ) THE sole question involved in the appeal is whether the suit accommodation and the kitchen are two integral parts of one tenancy. It is significant to note that the respondent executed two rent notes on one and the same day agreeing to pay rent of rs. 90/- p. m. for the portion involved in the suit (Ex. P. 2) and Rs. 225/- p. m. for the room used as kitchen (Ex. P. 1 ). Not only this, the landlord issued separate rent receipts ex. P. 6 and Ex. P. 7 for the suit accommodation and the kitchen. The respondent was called upon to explain as to why two rent-notes were executed by him when both the accommodations were part of one tenancy. All that he stated was that he did not realise the implications. This explanation is hardly satisfactory. If both the accommodations were demised under one contract of tenancy, there is no earthly reason as to why the respondent executed two rent notes so also why two receips were issued by the appellant paid on the same day. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent argued that eviction from the suit accommodation will deprive his client from reasonable user of the kitchen since there will be no place to expose the prepared eatables for sale. Possible hardship which the respondent may face, cannot be considered to non-suit the plaintiff. The trial Court held that the appellant genuinely requires the suit accommodation and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in the city. Possible hardship which the respondent may face, cannot be considered to non-suit the plaintiff. The trial Court held that the appellant genuinely requires the suit accommodation and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in the city. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the accommodation is not required bona fide on the sole consideration that a decree for evition from the hotel will deprive the respondent for making proper use of the kitchen. If the lease of the suit accommodation is separate and distinct from the lease of the other, though for more beneficial user of the first, the landlord cannot be denied relief of eviction from one accommodation only, needed for starting a business of his won. No question of interterece with covenant for quite enjoyment arises in the present case, when the parties by agreement Ex. P. 2 gave an unrestricted right to the landlord to evict the tenant just after serving notice of one months duration. The tenant also enjoys similar rights to vacate. Therefore, in the absence of restriction in Ex. P-14, the landord has an unqualified right to evict the respondent from the suit accommodation and this cannot be construed as interference with the covenant for quiet enjoyment of the kitchen by the respondent. The finding that the hotel accommodation and the kitchen form part of one tenancy cannot be sustained. Similarly, the finding that the claim is not bona fide which is based on supposed interference with covenant for quiet enjoyment, cannot be sustained. ( 9. ) THE appellant has also made an application for amendment of plaint to add a further prayer in the plaint for the respondents eviction from the kitchen also. The application was moved in answer to the respondents objection as to the tenability of suit for eviction from a part of the accommodation only, which was bound to result in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment of the kitchen. In view of my foregoing conclusions, this application is rendered infructuous and accordingly rejected. ( 10. ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the opinion that the two accommodations are not the inseparable parts of a single tenancy and, therefore, the appellant cannot be denied the relief of eviction from the suit accommodation alone. In view of my foregoing conclusions, this application is rendered infructuous and accordingly rejected. ( 10. ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the opinion that the two accommodations are not the inseparable parts of a single tenancy and, therefore, the appellant cannot be denied the relief of eviction from the suit accommodation alone. The genuineness of his need has been found by both the Courts below and in fact, it was not challenged before me at all by the respondent. Therefore, the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court has to be restored. ( 11. ) THE appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree passed by the court below are set aside and instead the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court is restored. Counsels fee accordingly to schedule, if certified. Appeal allowed.