JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-

1. The appellant a medical practitioner has been occupying as a tenant, the ground-floor of a house Block No. 732 at Lordganj, Jabalpur, for his dispensary for the last more than thirty years. On a family partition Block No. 732 was allotted to the share of the respondent Nemi Chand, S/o Ballolal and he has since August 1956 been occupying the upper-floor of the house for his residence, With the sanction of the Additional Collector. Jabalpur, granted under S, 13(i), (v) and (vi) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949, the respondent served a notice upon the appellant terminating the tenancy and commenced an action in the Court of 2nd. Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, for a decree in ejectment against the appellant and for mesne profits from April 1, 1958 till the date of evicton. The appellant resisted the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act, 23 of 1955, was extended to the whole of the Madhya Pradesh State, with effect from January 1, 1959 and the title of the Act was altered and it was entitled the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. By S. 4 of that Act no suit lay in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any "accommodation" except on one or more of the grounds specified in the section, and in S. 17 it was provided that in all suits for eviction of tenants from any "accommodation" pending on the date of the commencement of the Act, no decree for eviction shall be passed except on One or more of the grounds mentioned in S. 4 of the Act. The respondent then amended his plaint by adding paragraph I-A averring that the premises in suit were suitable for residential purposes, and that the premises were let for residential purposes, though the appellant used the premises for non-residential purposes.

2. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the action had to be tried and disposed of as if the new act did not apply thereto. In appeal the District Court set aside the decree and remanded the action for decision on the following two issues:-

"(i) Whether the accommodation is residential or non-residential; and

(ii) If the accommodation is residential whether the plaintiff genuinely requires the accommodation for his residence etc. as cotemplated by S. 4(g) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act."

3. The respondent thereafter again amended the plaint by averring that the premises in suit were suitable for business purposes and as he the respondent could "not effectively and profitably run his business" in Sarees, "it was essential for him to require the premises in suit for business purposes also", that he required the premises for the purpose of running his business, and that he had no other premises in his occupation for that purpose. The trial Court framed to additional issues directed to the questions whether the respondent genuinely required the suit premises for his residence and whether the respondent genuinely required the suit premises for running a cloth shop.

4. At the trial the respondent abandoned his case that the required the permises for use as residence and on a consideration of the evidence led by the parties the Court recorded a negative answer on the second additional issue and dismissed the suit. In appeal the district Court agreed with the view of the trial Court that the respondent's alleged requirement was not, genuine, and dismissed the appeal. But in second appeal the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversed the decree passed by the District Court. The High Court held that the finding of the District Court on the question of genuineness of the requirement was not conclusive, because the District Judge had not "correctly understood the legal connotation of the terms regarding which he was expected to give his finding" In the view of the High Court it was for the landlord to decide, arid not for the Court, how much space he required, that the landlord was the best Judge of his genuine requiremen