private limited company is a separate juristic entity. But, since eviction can be obtained only for bonafide purposes, which means good faith, they ought to have pleaded and shown to the Court that the directors of the company did not have any. This is another ground which impinges on the bonafides of the respondent/landlord and this aspect has also not been considered by the learned trial Court in this correct perspective. On the contrary, erroneously it has accepted the plea of the respondent and passed an eviction order. I feel that these two grounds, both with regard to the bonafide requirement of the space which is available with the respondent/landlord deserve to be established only during the trial. The third point which has been taken by the respondent is that the accommodation, which is available to it, is not good enough to meet its requirements, nor is it good enough to deal with its jewellery business. As against this, the petitioners/tenants have stated that it is a case of additional accommodation, inasmuch as the respondent is already having 169 sq. feet of area available with them and they need additional accommodation in the front in order to do their business of jewellery and, therefore, in case a party needs an additional accommodation, then invariably leave to defend deserves to be given. I find substance in this contention of the petitioners and also that it is not a case of insufficiency of accommodation as contended by Mr. S.P. Kalra, since insufficiency would arise in the backdrop of the quantum of business, but it is a case of additional accommodation which is needed by the respondent, though it has not been able to establish on record that they have a flourishing business, despite the fact that the averments in this regard have been
