second appeal deserves to be dismissed. He further submitted that two shops were not only available for satisfying the business needs of the stationery shop for his son Manish (PW.1), who was weak in studies and passed only 10th standard was doing the computer course and graduation later on and the shop in question which was given to other tenant, viz. M/s Suhag Jewellers in the year 1996; and at that time the original plaintiff (late Sh. Chiranjilal) had already retired and, therefore, both of them could very well start their business in the said shop, which was let out to said Suhag Jewellers, which was only half kilometer away from the suit shop and in that area, there various educational institutions were also available, where the business of stationery could be established. He further argued that a room constructed on the first floor (“Malia”) was also let out to one Sh. Kanhaiyalal, Advocate, which room could be used by the plaintiffs as godown for the stationery business, as such, but there was no bona fide necessity of the suit shop, and if really there was such necessity, the room constructed on the first floor could not be let-out to Advocate Sh. Kanhaiyalal, which could be used as godown or storing of keeping various items, which they could very well keep in the first floor room available to them. The said room was let out to the Sh. Kanhaiyalal just 3-4 month prior to filing of the present suit in the year 2000 and, therefore, the
