The court clarified the interpretation and application of Section 12(1)(f) and Section 12(1)(i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, emphasizing that the need of the grandson could not be considered the need of the landlady, and that Section 12(1)(i) did not apply to non-residential accommodation.

R.S. Garg, J.

1. By this appeal the appellant/defendant challenges the correctness, validity and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 22-4-99, passed in regular appeal No. 4-A of 1998, by the-learned Third Additional District Judge, Durg, confirming the judgment and decree dated 1-1-98, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Class I, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 58-A of 1997, decreeing the plaintiffs suit and directing eviction of the appellant from the suit premises.

2. The facts in nut-shell are that the land-lady filed a civil suit for eviction of the present appellant, inter alia stating that her grand-sons have attained majority and she being the grand-mother was required to settle them in the life and in the said process, she was requiring the suit premises bona fide for the business prospects of her grand-sons. In Paragraph 3 of the plaint she pleaded that her grand-son Vivek Shrivastava needed the premises. In Paragraph 4, she pleaded that she was in need of the premises for her another grand-son Sandeep Shrivastava and as for the said purpose she did not possess any other reasonable alternative accommodation of her own in the township of Durg, the defendant deserved to be evicted from the suit premises. As an additional ground, in Paragraph 5 of the plaint, it was further pleaded that the tenant had acquired another reasonable suitable accommodation for the purposes of the business, therefore, also he deserved to be evicted. The defendant contested the suit on all possible grounds. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit.

3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant preferred First Appeal, as the same proved futile, the defendant has come to this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The present appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the suit of the plaintiff/landlord could be decreed for non-residential requirement when the need was not for the son or unmarried daughter or for the person for whose benefit the accommodation was held, but in fact was for the grand-son ?

(2) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in granting a decree under Section 12 (1) (i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, admittedly when the premises in dispute are not residential premises ?"

5. Shri Soni, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the language of Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act and its juxta-pose reading with the pleadings raised by the plaintiff/land-lady, the suit for eviction could not be decreed against the present appellant/defendant because the need was not in relation to the land-lady herself or for her major son or for unmarried daughter or for the person for whose benefit the premises were held by the landlady. According to him, as the need of the grandson is not need of landlady, in view of the language employed in Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act, the Courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit.

6. Challenging the decree passed on the ground of Section 12(1) (i) of the Act, learned counsel for the appellant submits that from a very perusal of clause (i) of Section 12 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, it would clearly appear that if the tenant builds or acquires or has been allotted some other residential accommodation which is reasonably suitable for his accommodation, then the tenant can be evicted from the premises, but where the tenancy is not for his residential purpose, then provisions contained under Section 12 (1) (i) shall not apply.

7. Shri N.L. Shrivastava and Shri H.B. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent, supporting the decree passed by the two Courts below, submit that as the need of the grandson is the need of the landlady and as the grandson was a member of the family of landlady, the Courts below were justified in decreeing th