Quadri, J. -- 1. These appeals, by special leave, are from the judgments and decrees of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal Nos. 408/89 and 409/89 passed on 9.7.1997. The appellant is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant of two shops in house Nos. 23/507 and 508 situated at Azad Chowk Handipara, Raipur hereinafter referred to as 'suit premises').

2. On 2.5.85, the appellant filed two suits in the Court of IInd Civil Judge Class II, Raipur, against the respondent for his eviction from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of his unemployed son for establishing a Provision Store under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). He stated that he had no alternative reasonable suitable non-residential accommodation in the city of Raipur for the said purpose. The respondent's plea was one of denial of bona fide requirement of the landlord. After framing necessary issues and considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove his bona fide requirement and observed that he had only a desire to establish the business for his son. However, he recorded the finding that the appellant has no reasonable suitable accommodation in the Raipur city. Consequently both the suits were dismissed by the learned Trial Judge by a Common judgment on January 27, 1987. Dissatisfied with that judgment and decree of the Trial Court the appellant filed two appeals in the Court of 1st Additional Distt. Judge, Raipur. The learned District Judge, on appreciating the evidence, held that the appellant had proved bona fide requirement for establishing a business for his son. In that view of the matter he allowed the appeals and decreed the suits against the respondent on September 6, 1998. The tenant questioned the correctness of the said judgment and decree of the learned District Judge before the High Court in Second Appeal Nos. 408-409 of 1989.

3. The High Court, at the time of admission of the Second Appeals, framed the following question of law for determination:

"Whether the Court below was justified in granting a decree under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P., Accommodation Control Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case ?"

4. At the stage of final hearing of the Second Appeals, the following additional substantial question of law was formulated:

"Whether respondent has proved all the ingredients of Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in order to get a decree of eviction against the appellant ?"

The answer to these questions recorded by the High Court, is that the appellant failed to prove all the ingredients of Section 12(1)(f) of the Act and his claim that he bona fide required the suit premises, cannot be sustained as he suppressed the fact that he was in possession of an alternative vacant accommodation in the same building. The High Court thus allowed the appeals of the respondent and dismissed both the suits of the appellant for the same reasons but by separate judgment dated 9.7.97. It is against those judgments and decrees of the High Court, the present appeals are filed.

5. Mr. S.S. Khanduja, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the High Court fell into an error in re-appreciating the evidence and answering the questions in the negative--against the appellant. The High Court should have, submitted the learned counsel, recorded answer to the questions on the basis of the facts found by the 1st Appellate Court.

6. Mr. B.S. Banthia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, argued that the appellant/landlord, before filing the eviction petition, had in his possession two residential portions of the house which he let out to others but he did not plead that he was in possession of other accommodation and that it was not suitable for non-residential purposes so the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that as the appel