( 1 ) THE following question has been referred to this Bench by the learned single Judge hearing this appeal: "in the case of a composite tenancy, if it is established that the landlord requires the non-residential part of the accommodation or residential part of the accommodation. Whether a decree for eviction of the tenant from the entire premises can be passed. "

( 2 ) SHRI Chaphekar, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that if a landlord was able to make out a ground specified in Section 12 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), he became entitled to a decree for eviction in respect of that portion of the premises, the requirements for which was established by him and as a contract of tenancy could not be split up a decree for eviction of the tenant from the entire premises had to be passed.

( 3 ) IN reply, Shri Saxena, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in the case of a composite tenancy, the landlord had to establish requirement of residential as well as the non-residential part of the accommodation and unless that was done, he was not entitled to a decree for eviction of the tenant from the premises. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Gopal Dass Verma v. Dr. S. K. Bhardwaj (AIR 1963 SC 337), Miss S. Sanyal v. Gianchand (AIR 1968 SC 438) and Has-mat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad (AIR 1961 SC 1711 ).

( 4 ) BEFORE we proceed to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2 (a) defines, 'accommodation' as follows:

"2 (a) "accommodation means any building or part of a building whether residential or non-residential and includes : (i) any land which is not being used for agricultural purposes; (ii) garden, grounds, garages and outhouses, if any, appurtenant to such building or part of the building; (iii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof; (iv) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of building. " Section 12 (1) of the Act limits the right of a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant. The provisions lays down that unless one of the grounds specified in that sub-section has been made out, a decree for eviction of a tenant from any accommodation cannot be passed. The grounds material for the purpose of this case are those specified in Clauses (c) and (f) of Section 12 (1) of the Act which read as under:-"12 (1) (e) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any members of his family, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. "

"12 (1) (f) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. "

As stated in the premable, the Act provides for the regulation and control of letting and rent of accommodation and the eviction of the tenants therefrom. It is true that the object of the Act is to give protection to the tenants, as urged on behalf of the respondent, by preventing unscrupulous and veracious landlords from charging exorbitant rent from tenants and evicting tenants, who refused to agree to the enhancement of their rent. It is, however, obvious that the aim of the legislature was not to extinguish all the rights of a landlord. Restric