But even so the appellants cannot succeed in this appeal. Firstly it is doubtful whether the requirement of the premises by the landlord for occupaticm by the partnership firm in which he is a partner will be tantamount to "occupation by himself" i.e. by the landlord. D Certain decisions of some .High Courts were brnught to our notice taking the view that it is so. we refrain from expressing our opinion in that regard. We assume, as seems to have been the view of the High Court in this case, that the requirement of the premises for the use of a partnership firm by the landlord in which he is a partner is covered by section 13(1) (g) of the Bombay Act. Yet ort the facts E of this case there is an insurmountable difficulty in the way of the appellants. From the judgment dated March 31, 1970 of the First Appellate Court it would appear that on the death of Thakordas in June, 1965 a new partnership was constituted. One of his sons Shantilal who was . a 'partner from before was taken as a partner in the new partnership alongwith Thakordas's another son Dhanvantlal Thakordas, appellant No. 2. There were some outsider partners. Harish F Thakordas, appellant No. 3, a minor son of Thakordas had not been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. He had, therefore, no interest in the partnership firm Jai Hind Silk Weaving Works. The Appollate Court took the view that the substituted plaintiffs wanted to use the suit premises for .the purpose of godown for keeping the yarn clothes and machinery articles and also for a retail shop and show room of tke partnership. This in no sense could be the require- G ment of appellant Harish even assuming that it could be said to be the requirement of his two elder brothers appellants 1 and 2. In that view of the matter we have got to dismiss the appeal althougli Mr. ll>ho- lakia, learned counsel for the appellants succeeded in persuading us to differ from the ratio of Phul Rani's case.
