( 1 ) THIS appeal came up for consideration before single Bench of this Court on 3-7-2001 and the learned single Judge referred the matter to the larger bench as he has reached to the conclusion that there is a conflict of opinion in the two single Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Badrilal v. Digambar Jain panchayat, Sonkutch, 1973 MPLJ 690 and Tarachand Gupta v. Smt. Annapurnabai, 1968 MPLJ 751 on the question of interpretation of the word 'business' occurring in Section 12 (l) (f) of the m. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). In the case of badrilal (supra) it is held that the word 'business' has to be interpreted in narrower sense that means the word 'business' will include only commercial activity while in the case of Tarachand Gupta (supra) it has been held that the word 'business' is comprehensive enough to include the profession or any activity carried for earning livelihood. In another case that is in the case of Taramal v. Laxman Sewak Surey, 1971 MPLJ 888, it has been held that the word 'business' should not be interpreted narrowly and it should be used in a wider sense. The word 'business' is not synonymous w