JUDGMENT This second appeal arises against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below. The respondent/plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant for bonafide need of two members of the family. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the Courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that the shop in question is 8' x 7'. Both the brothers required accommodation separately. Thus, if the shop is partitioned there will be hardly a room for carrying out a separate business which is rather impracticable. This has not been considered. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant had moved an application under O. 6 R. 17 CPC before the learned appellate Court. The learned appellate Court wrongly rejected it. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the bonafide need is a finding of fact. The discussion is proper. Regarding the application for amendment he urged that it is necessary for the Court to see as to whether the amendment prayed is necessary for the disposal of the case or not. In case, it is not, the amendment cannot be allowed. He relied upon 1995 Vol. I MPWN Note 195. I have considered the contentions. The question as to how the plaintiffs will manage the shop so that both the members of the family may run their business is for the plaintiffs to see and not for the defendant. The finding of bonafide requirement is a finding of fact. No other illegality has been pointed out. I do not find any substantial question involved in the appeal. As regards the amendment application it may be said that the amendment application has been moved before the lower appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiffs had started business in a shop situated in Babu Kailash Narayan Market, Morena. It has nowhere been alleged that shop belonged to the plaintiffs. The essential ingredient is that the plaintiffs should not have accommodation of his own. Unless it is alleged and proved it cannot be said to be a subsequent event. Such an amendment was, therefore, not necessary and the lower appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application. As far as the application moved under O. 41 R. 27 is concerned, I have perused this application. No ground has been mentioned as to why the documents were not filed earlier. This application too has rightly been rejected. Such an amendment was, therefore, not necessary and the lower appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application. As far as the application moved under O. 41 R. 27 is concerned, I have perused this application. No ground has been mentioned as to why the documents were not filed earlier. This application too has rightly been rejected. There is thus no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Lastly the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for more time for vacating the accommodation in question. The suit for ejectment was filed as early as 1989. Sufficient time has been given to the appellant. I do not find any justifiable ground to grant further time. The appeal is dismissed.