Judgment Vineet Kothari, J.-This appeal under Section 82 of the ESI Act, 1948 is directed against the order dated 25.08.1998 by the ESI Court, Jaipur deciding the case No. ESI/6/92 under Section 25(1)(g) of the said Act holding that the Pankaj Hotel and Pankaj Restaurant though being run in the same premises and owned by members of same family, were different establishments and since the number of employees in either of these Units were less minimum prescribed 10 the coverage of said establishments under the ESI Act, was not valid and, therefore, the demand of ESI contributions raised against the applicant Hotel Pankaj taking employees of both the Units which taken together exceeded 10, was illegal. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant ESI Corporation submitted that since the business of both the establishments Pankaj Hotel and Pankaj Restaurant was being carried on in the same premises and the owners of the two establishments were of the same family and in Form No. 01. filled up at the time of the survey and duly signed by the owner Parmanand, showed that the number of employees of both the establishments taken together was 12, therefore, the learned ESI Court has committed an error in striking out the demand of ESI contributions. 3. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and contended that merely because the two establishments were in the same premises, or the owners of the same are belonging to the same family, they cannot be treated as one establishment because in the present case, the income tax and sales tax assessments of both the establishments took place separately and, therefore, they were two different legal entities and different establishments in the eye of law and the number of employees in one establishment being less than the prescribed minimum for coverage of the Unit under the ESI. The learned Court below was justified in allowing the application under Section 75(1)(g) of the Act. 4. The learned Court below was justified in allowing the application under Section 75(1)(g) of the Act. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Court below was justified in arriving at the conclusion that two establishments were owned by different persons who were distinct and separate in the eye of law and merely because they were working in the same premises or building or the owners belonged to one family, it could not amount to both the units being one and common establishment for the purposes of this Act. 5. In view thereof , the finding arrived at by the learned Court below cannot be held to be perverse or wrong in any manner. Consequently, there is no force in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.