( 1 ) THIS is a tenant's appeal against whom a suit for eviction has been decreed on the ground mentioned in Section 12 (1) (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation control Act, 1961, on the finding that the house in possession of the tenant is needed by the plaintiff-landlord for using it as a lawyer's office. The plaintiff is an advocate of two or three years standing and, according to the plaint allegations, he has no other suitable accommodation for his office.

( 2 ) THE main dispute between the parties is, whether the house was let to the defendant for residential purposes or whether it was let for non-residential purposes. If it is held that the house was let for residential purposes, the plaintiff cannot succeed, as for getting a decree under Section 12 (1) (f) he has to establish that the accommodation was let for non-residential purposes. The trial Court committed the mistake of not framing a direct issue on this point, but I find that the parties were alive to the point in issue and they led evidence in support of their respective pleas. Omission to frame a specific issue on the point, therefore, has not prejudiced the parties.

( 3 ) THE question whether an