which fact has been admitted by the respondents in their reply affidavit to the leave to defend application. In the reply affidavit to the leave to defend application, the respondents have reiterated that there is one shop in possession of the two brothers, however, there are two shutters of the said shop. No material has been placed by the petitioners to show that there is a partition in the shop. Be that as it may, the said issue is not relevant because the respondents have claimed the tenanted premises with the petitioners on the ground that the son of respondent no. 1 aged 24 years in 2010 was unemployed and unmarried and had to be settled. The age or the unemployment of the son of respondent no. 1 is not disputed by the petitioners. It is also not stated by the petitioners that the son of respondent no. 1 is gainfully employed somewhere. The only contention is that son is running the shop with his father. A perusal of the averments of the respondents in the eviction petition would show that both the brothers are running a shop together and in such a situation if a separate shop is required for engaging the son of respondent no. 1 in business, it cannot be said that the same is not a bonafide requirement. No material has been placed on record to show that the respondents have alternative suitable accommodation. .
