1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal is filed by the landlord against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, whereby the learned appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the suit for ejectment filed by the appellant under Section 12 (1) (b) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that house No. 29/2 is his ancestral property whereas house No. 41/1 is owned by her wife. He also submitted that the lower appellate Court committed an error in holding that apart from the suit house the appellant is owner of house Nos. 29/2, 44/1 and 31/2 and submitted that except the suit house (House No. 42) he has no other suitable accommodation for starting his business as well as his son's of electronic and telecommunication business. With the aforesaid he has submitted that the learned appellate Court has wrongly negatived his bona fide need and erred in law in dismissing the suit. 4. As per paragraphs 17,32 & 34 of the cross examination of the appellant (PW 1), wherein he has on the basis of Ex. D/6 an affidavit filed by him before the Election Commission somewhere in 2008, very specifically admitted that house No. 41/1 is owned by his wife, whereas he is owner of other house. He has suppressed the fact of other suitable accommodation which is owned by him and wrongly in his cross examination has stated that he is tenant of house No:44/1. In absence of any proof to the contrary, positive oral testimony of the witness which withstood cross examination cannot be disbelieved merely on, the basis of inferences. Initial burden on landlord to show that he had no other suitable accommodation of his own. 5. In view of the admission made by the appellant and on due consideration of the material available on record this Court is of the view that the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court to the effect that the appellant has other suitable alternative accommodation to start his own business and for the business of his son is a based on his own admission. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal filed by the landlord has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Dasharth Ghodke for appellant; Vinay Zelawat for respondent No. 1.