The burden of proof lies upon the landlord-plaintiff to prove non-availability of reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

( 1 ) BY this civil second appeal, the appellant-tenant challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sheopur Kalan, camp Morena, in Civil Appeal No. 3a of 1982 dated 14-7-1982.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT-LANDLORD filed a suit against the appellant-tenant, for his eviction from the non-residential suit premises situate on Malgodam Road, Morena, on the grounds mentioned in section 12 (1) (a) and (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also prayed for a decree of Rs. 282. 50. In brief, the case of the respondent-landlord was that the appellant-defendant is his tenant of the suit shop, but he now bona fide requires the said non-residential accommodation for his major son Laxminarayan, to start his business and he has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the town of Morena.

( 3 ) APPELLANT-DEFENDANT repelled the contents of the plaint and averred that the alleged need of the landlord is not bona fide. He further pleaded that just by the side of the suit shop, the landlord has a vacant non-residential accommodation in which his son can start the business without evicting him from the suit shop.

( 4 ) THE trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, answered the issues as given below : - (I) Defendant has deposited the due rent within two months from the date of notice of demand for arrears of rent and is, thus entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of S. 12 (3) and S. 13 (1) of the Act. (ii) Plaintiff requires bona fide the suit premises for his major son Laxminarayan for the purpose of starting transport business. (iii) Plaintiff has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own within the municipal area of Morena. The trial Court, thus, decreed the suit of the plaintiff with regard to the ground provided under S. 12 (1) (f) of the Act. The appellant-tenant aggrieved by this judgment and decree passed against him, preferred an appeal. The first appellate Court expressed its concurrence with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, now the appellant-tenant invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under section 100, C. P. C.

( 5 ) THIS Court on 1-12-1982 admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law : -" (1) Whether under section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the burden to prove non-availability of reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned, lies upon the landlord-plaintiff? (2) Whether the lower Court's finding as to non-availability of alternative non-residential accommodation is vitiated on account of wrong placing on the defendant the burden to prove availability of alternative non-residential accommodation?"

( 6 ) BEFORE taking up these questions, I propose to decide I. A. No. 2383 of 1985, filed with an affidavit by the appellant-tenant under the provisions of O. 41 R. 27, C. P. C. By this application Shri R. D. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, prays that the appellant be allowed to produce, as additional evidence, two photographs of the suit shop and that of the adjacent non-residential accommodation in the plaintiffs own possession. Shri R. C. Lahoti, learned counsel for the respondent, has not only hotly contested and opposed the said prayer orally but also in writing. According to him, this application of the appellant is not only mala fide, but the photographs are the result of trick photography, and it has been filed with an ulterior motive of delaying and defeating the decree passed in the plaintiff-landlord's favour. He further contends that on the face of the concurrent findings of fact and also on the ground that the appellant had. full opportunity to adduce his evidence before the trial Court, this mala fide chess-move at this stage on the pa