JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 17.8.2001 passed in Second Appeal No.596 of 1999.

2. The appellant is particularly aggrieved by the impugned judgment because the concurrent findings of fact have been set aside by the High Court in the second appeal without any basis, justification or cogent grounds.

3. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

Appellants Sameer Kumar Pal and Subhash Chandra Pal, both sons of Laxminarayan Pal (who were the plaintiffs in the trial court), filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jabalpur. In the plaint, it was clearly incorporated that the appellants were the owners in possession of Shop No.1214 (Old No.892), New Corporation Chowk, Wright Town, Jabalpur. They purchased the said shop vide sale-deed dated 31.12.1991.

4. The appellants filed a suit for eviction against the defendants (respondents herein) under section 12(1)(c) (that the tenant has created nuisance), 12(1)(f) (for bona fide requirement of landlord for non-residential purposes) and 12(1)(g) (bona fide requirements of landlord to carry out repairs) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The relevant parts of section 12 of the Act are set out as under:

"12. Restriction on eviction of tenants.--(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds, only, namely--

(a) (b) x x x

(c) that the tenant or any person residing with him has created a nuisance or has done any act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation, or which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord therein:

(d) (e) x x x

(f) that the accommodation let for non-residential purpose is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned;

(g) that the accommodation has become unsafe, or unfit for human habitation and is required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated."

5. In the written statement filed in the trial court, the respondents herein raised the main objection that the appellants herein are not the owners of the suit property and the trial court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as the suit property has been a Wakf property. It may be pertinent to mention that in the written statement the respondents nowhere took the plea that the suit property, namely `Madras Hotel' is a joint family property. The trial court held that the appellants were in bona fide need of carrying on the business of sweets and for running a restaurant. No other vacant property was in possession of the appellants in Jabalpur. It was also held that the shop in question is very old, unsafe and in dilapidated condition. There is need to repair and carry out some structural changes in the shop which cannot be carried out unless the same is made available to the appellants. The trial court clearly held that the appellants are in bona fide need of the suit property. The trial court also held that the respondents have not paid rent since September, 1992 and decided the issue of default in favour of the appellants. The trial court categorically held that the suit property is not the Wakf property and decreed the suit of the appellants.

6. The respondents preferred first appeal before the court of XIth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur. The entire evidence was re-app