The interpretation of 'suitable for residence' under Section 12 (1) (i) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and the consideration of alternative accommodation acquired by the tenant in determining the landlord's claim for eviction.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal by plaintiffs who were unsuccessful in their claim for eviction in the two courts below was by order dated 5-11-85 admitted for final hearing on the substantial question of law set out below :- "whether on facts and circumstances of the case defendant has acquired suitable vacant accommodation for residence and plaintiffs are entitled to eviction under S. 12 (1) (i) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act ?"

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case in brief is that they are owner of the house bearing No. 2, Kanoongo Bakhal, Indore. The defendant is a tenant of one room and osari for residential purpose on the first floor of the plaintiffs' commences from the first of every month according to English Calendar. The plaintiffs claimed for eviction on the ground under S. 12 (1) (e) and (it of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) - Bona fide requirement for residence for himself and for any member of his family and there being no other alternative accommodation of his own in the city and that the defendant has acquired vacant possession of house bearing No. 13/30 Peer Gali, Indore on 28-12-1972 which is suitable for his residence he has also acquired premises consisting of five rooms at 146 Pandharinath Path, Indore and his need does not exist. The plaintiff after serving quit-notice, Ex. P/4 germinating tenancy on 31-1-78 filed the suit claiming mesne profits and eviction. The defendant resisted the suit contending that house at 146, Pandharinath Path did not belong to him but was gifted to his wife and sons and could not be taken into consideration in judging defendant's need. About house No,13/30 Peer Gali it was submitted that house is Kachcha and old and has no water connection and lavatory and is not suitable for his residence. The suit was filed with ulterior motive to getting the rent increased and it was res judicata.

( 3 ) THE trial Court (6th Civil Judge, Class II, Indore) by judgment and decree dated 25-1-85 held that the defendant had acquired house bearing Municipal No, 13 / 30 Peer Gali, Indore on 28-12-72 but the same was not suitable for residence. The plaintiffs did not require the house bona fide for residence of members of his family, that he was not possessed of any alternative accommodation at Indore, that it was not resjudicata; that house at 146 Pandharinath Path is not suitable for defendant's residence. With these findings the trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.

( 4 ) IN appeal by plaintiffs the first appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 1-8-85 held that house at 146, Pandharinath Path, Indore was obtained in gift by sons and wife of defendant and could not be taken into consideration in judging the need of the defendant's residence. Besides, the defendant with his wife and children was living in that house. About the house at Peer Cali (i. e. No. 13 / 30) he held that it has no lavatory but only common Public lavatory near by which would not fulfil the defendant's need. Till the lavatory is constructed it would not be suitable for defendant's residence. The first appellate Court however, granted mesne profits from 1-2-78 but dismissed the claim for eviction. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. Hence, the present appeal.

( 5 ) AT the hearing of the appeal, Shri R. G. Waghmare Senior Advocate with Shri Uday Wadnerkar representing the plaintiff/ appellants submitted that admittedly the defendant had acquired the house No. 13 / 30 situated at Peer Gali, Indore which was at one time a Paiga i. e. hourse stable belonging to Erstwhile Jagirdar and the wife and sons of the defendant had been sifted the house at 146, Pandharinath Path, Indore. Shri Waghmare emphasized that while the defendant had only one room in plaintiff's house, the house at 13/30 Peer Gali had two rooms and a Varanda and had been let out by defendant to a tenant. Earlier, it was used by the tenant for