1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), the appellant has challenged legality & propriety of the judgment & decree dated 29-10-93 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.lA/93 reversing the judgment & decree dated 30-1-93 passed by the 4th Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.160A/90, whereby the decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide need for non-residential purpose passed by the 4th Civil Judge Class-II was reversed by the lower appellate Court.

2. Present appeal has been admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court in view of the evidence of respondent No.1?

Additional question

I. Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in reversing the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court under Section 12 (1) (t) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the ground that the plaintiff led no evidence to prove existence of an alternative accommodation, due to ignoring that there was no specific denial of the pleadings contained in para 3 of the plaint regarding non availability of any alternative accommodation by the defendant and also that in view of the statement on oath of the defendant in para 9, no prejudice was caused to the defendant due to the fact that the plaintiff did not lead oral evidence to that effect?

2(a) Whether the respondent/defendant did not comply with Section 13 (1) of the Accommodation Control Act?

2(b) If yes, whether due to non-compliance of Section 13 (1) and a concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts that the defendant was in arrears of rent, a decree for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Accommodation Control Act ought to have been passed by the trial Court against the defendant?

3. Whether the lower Appellate Court was not justified in holding that the appellant/plaintiff has not been able to prove ownership over the suit accommodation in view of the admission of the respondent/defendant in para 9 of the statement?

3. The appellant has also filed 1.A.No.5106/98, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code for taking additional evidence relating to the will deed executed by Mathura Prasad in favour of the plaintiff, and I.A.No.647/ 2007, an application under Order 4 I Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code for taking additional evidence relating to judgment & decree passed by the civil Courts in respect of other part of the suit premises where the suit accommodation is situated. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on these applications also.

4. Brief case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint allegation, is that the plaintiff/appellant is land lord and owner of the suit property situate at Sadar Bazaar, Bilaspur. Original defendant Kartar Chand Arora (since deceased) predecessor of the respondents herein was tenant in the suit premises on Rs. 300/- per month rent. Originally Mathura Prasad Dubey was owner of the suit property in which Kartar Chand was running his business and the tenancy was for non-residential purpose. Civil Suit No.21 A/76 was pending and decided between Mathura Prasad Dubey ane! Kartar Chand Arora on the basis of compromise on 25-8-75 in which Kartar Chand has admitted ownership of Mathura Prasad Dubey over the suit propeliy. Mathura Prasad has executed will in favour of the plaintiff and after the death of Mathura Prasad, the plaintiff became sole owner of the suit property alvng with other properties. Original defendant Kartar Chand has admitted ownership and landlordship of the plaintiff/appellant herein over the suit property. The then defendant Kartar Chand was also served with notice on behalf of the plaintiff relating to increase' of rent from Rs.85/- to Rs. 125/- per month and from Rs.125/- to Rs.300/- per month, same was accepted by original tenant Kmiar Chand. Kartar Chand was also served with