ORDER : S.N. Variava, J. This appeal is against the judgment dated 17-12-1997. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows : the respondent is a tenant of the appellant in the premises situated in Gali No. 2, Loha Bazar, Bhopal, hereinafter referred to as "the premises". The appellant instituted a suit for ejectment of the respondent on the ground of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of bonafide requirement. The appellant alleged that he was staying in a rented premises and therefore required the suit premises for his own occupation. In the written statement the respondent took up the plea that the premises in which the appellant was staying was a joint family property in which the appellant had a share and therefore the appellant did not require the suit premises bonafide for his own use. 2. The premises in which the appellant was staying, stood in the name of one Shyam Lal. During pendency of the suit Shyam Lal expired. The respondent then amended his written statement taking the plea that the appellant was an heir of Shyam Lal and now becomes a part-owner of the premises where he was residing. The appellant also amended the plaint. He took up the plea that on the death of Shyam Lal the premises had gone to one Sukhnandan. The appellant claimed he had no right, title and interest in the premises where he was residing. 3. During the trial the appellant examined himself and asserted that he had no right, title and interest in the premises where he resided. He asserted that he was merely a tenant in those premises. His testimony could not be shaken in the cross-examination. The appellant also examined Sukhnandan who gave evidence to the effect that on the death of Shyam Lal he had become the owner of the premises. Sukhnandan also deposed that the appellant was a tenant of Shyam Lal and that after Shyam Lal's death all tenants were paying rent to him. In the cross-examination of Sukhnandan nothing contrary could be brought out. The appellant also examined one other person who claimed that he had been collecting rent from the appellant on behalf of Shyam Lal. As against this positive evidence the respondent led no evidence at all. The trial court therefore correctly decreed the suit on 10-8-1994. 4. The respondent thereafter filed an appeal. The appellant also examined one other person who claimed that he had been collecting rent from the appellant on behalf of Shyam Lal. As against this positive evidence the respondent led no evidence at all. The trial court therefore correctly decreed the suit on 10-8-1994. 4. The respondent thereafter filed an appeal. The appellate court ignoring the positive evidence proceeded on the basis of inferences and set aside the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. 5. The appellant then filed a second appeal which has been dismissed by the High Court in limine holding that the findings of the appellate court could not be said to be perverse. 6. We have perused the evidence on record. We have read the trial court judgment and the judgment of the first appellate court. Undoubtedly, the initial burden to prove that the premises were required by him bonafide for his own use was on the appellant. He thus had to show that he did not have any other suitable accommodation of his own. In our view, the appellant discharged this burden by the evidence set out hereinbefore. There being no contrary evidence, merely on the basis of inferences, the first appellate court could not have interfered. In our view the finding recorded by the first appellate court cannot be sustained at all. It is clear that the findings of the first appellate court are contrary to the material on record. 7. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in law there was a presumption that in case of a Hindu family the properties were joint. He submitted that in any event, it was an admitted position that the appellant's father was the brother of Shyam Lal. He submitted that on Shyam Lal's death the appellant and his father inherited a share in Shyam Lal's property. He submitted that in the absence of there being any documentary evidence to show how Sukhnandan inherited properties of Shyam Lal, the oral testimony could not be believed. He submitted that the first appellate court has drawn correct inferences. 8. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr Amarendra Sharan. It has been proved that the appellant was a tenant of Shyam Lal. It has been further proved by oral testimony that Shyam Lal's properties went to Sukhnandan. He submitted that the first appellate court has drawn correct inferences. 8. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr Amarendra Sharan. It has been proved that the appellant was a tenant of Shyam Lal. It has been further proved by oral testimony that Shyam Lal's properties went to Sukhnandan. There is no reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of all the witnesses in the absence of any proof to the contrary. Merely on the basis of inferences, positive oral testimony, which has withstood cross-examination, cannot be discarded. 9. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned judgment as well as the judgment dated 18-4-1996 and restore the decree passed by the trial court. 10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 11. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.