Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the defendant is as under:-

"1. Whether in view of the fact that the suit house was let out for residential purposes, the respondent was entitled to get the suit house vacated on the composite need of non-residential cum residential purposes ?

2. Whether in view of the pleadings of the respondents that they wanted the suit house for reconstruction, the suit u/s 12 (1) (g) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act Act could be decreed ?

3. Whether the court below could have passed the impugned judgment and decree u/s 12 (1) (h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act without satisfying the provisions of section 18 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act ?

4. Whether the respondent was also required to plead and prove that he had no alternative accommodation suitable for the purpose for which he was seeking eviction ? "

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court].

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against the defendant from the suit accommodation stating inter-alia that they are landlords and the defendant is their tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 14/-. The suit house is situated in Nazul Sheet No.47 D of Plot No.130/1 area 1121 sq.mt. at Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon. It is their case that the tenant had not paid rent for ten years and encroached upon part of government land and made construction therein. The suit accommodation is also in dilapidated condition and become unsafe for human living and they wanted to repair it, which cannot be done without vacating the suit accommodation and the suit accommodation is required bona fide for the plaintiffs residential as well as non-residential purposes. It was further pleaded that the suit accommodation was let-out for residential purpose, however, the defendant is using the same for non-residential purpose, as such, the defendant is liable to be vacated from the suit premises and accordingly, decree be granted their favour.

3. The defendant filed his written statement stating inter-alia that the defendant is washerman by occupation and from day one he is using the suit accommodation for residential as well as nonresidential purpose, as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled for decree for eviction and the suit be dismissed with costs.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record by its judgment and decree dated 13.3.1995 came to the specific conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for decree under Section 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1961") as well as under Sections 12 (1) (e) (f) and 12 (1) (g) of the Act of 1961 and granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court partly interfered with the said finding and held that the plaintiffs are entitled for decree under Section 12 (1) (e) (f) (g) (h) of the Act of 1961 and set aside the decree granted under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act of 1961, against which, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the defendant, in which substantial questions of law have been framed and set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr. Harshal Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant, would submit that both the Courts below ought to have granted right of re-entry under Section 18 (3) of the Act of 1961 after granting a decree under Section 12 (1) (g) and (h) of the Act of 1961. He would further submit that the suit accommodation let-out for residential purpose could not have been directed to be vacated for the composite need of residential and non-residential purpose, as such, the second appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below deserve to be set aside.

6. None appeared for the respondents, though served.

7