JUDGMENT : 1. On 9th March, 2016, this Court had passed an order as under; "Heard Shri Zinjarde, the learned counsel appearing for the applicanttenant. He submits that the need putforth was of the grandson of the nonapplicant/ landlord, but neither the grandson nor his father has entered the witnessbox to depose that they intend to start the business of jewellery The lower Appellate Court has acted upon the socalled admission in para 28 of its judgment about existence of alternate accommodation available to the applicanttenant The learned counsel further submits that there is no such admission given by the applicanttenant. Issue notice for final disposal of the matter, to the nonapplicant, returnable on 452016. In the meantime, there shall be stay to the execution of the decree". The respondent has appeared in response to the notice of this Court. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding that the bonafide requirement has been established by the landlord. Shri Zinjarde, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the landlord is aged about 85 years and the need put forth is of the grand son, who is presently taking education. Neither the son nor the grand son has entered the witnessbox to depose the requirement by subjecting themselves to cross examination. He has invited my attention to the provision of Section 114, illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, which states that the evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. According to him, in view of the non examination of son or the grand son, an adverse inference is required to be drawn as contemplated by the said provision. 3. It is obvious that the respondent is the owner of the suit property and doing the jewellery business. The shop block in question is adjacent to the business shop which is being run by the respondent landlord. The requirement is for expansion of the family business, which is being run by the respondent and the connected business by the son. The plaintiff has entered the witnessbox and has stated that the grand son has completed the education and would be engaged in the business. 4. In view of the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, no jurisdictional error is made out. The plaintiff has entered the witnessbox and has stated that the grand son has completed the education and would be engaged in the business. 4. In view of the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, no jurisdictional error is made out. The revision application is dismissed. 5. At this stage, Shri Zinjarde, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant after taking instructions from the appellant, who is personally present before this Court, makes a statement that if a period of three months is granted, the appellant shall undertake to vacate the suit premises. In view of this, the appellant is granted time upto 30th September, 2016, to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking to that effect within a period of two weeks from today. If such undertaking is not furnished, the executing Court shall proceed to execute the decree.