10.In his evidence in chief, the revision petitioner/tenant has admitted that the respondents/landlords have been running a coffee bar in the portion which is in their occupation, but with regard to the ground of additional accommodation, he has not stated anything excepting the fact that the portion in which the coffee bar is being run by the respondents/landlords is sufficient to run their business. It is admitted fact that the respondents are landlords and they have been residing with their respective family members in the back portion of the petition mentioned building. In his cross-examination, R.W.1, who is the revision petitioner has deposed that he did not say anything as to whether the respondents/landlords were in need of the additional accommodation to expand their business. It is revealed from the cross-examination of R.W.1 that he was not able to recollect the facts as to from which month he had to pay the rent. He has also admitted that he had received a notice demanding the arrears of rent but he had not given any reply.
