S.D. Jha, J. -- 1. This second Appeal by defendant / tenant who was unsuccessful in the two Courts below was by order dated 8-12-89 admitted for final hearing on the substantial questions of law set out below: -

1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the failure of the plaintiff /respondent to plead about the existence of 'BACK KOTHA' and its unsuitability for the plaintiff's non-residential purpose is fatal to the suit?

2. Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case in judging turnover of the plaintiff / respondent's business, the lower Court committed illegality in taking the turnover reflected in Khata of the plaintiff without proof of the entries of the Khata?

2. The plaintiff filed civil suit on 19-8-81 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Sanawad against the defendant for eviction from non-residential accommodation described in para 2 and para 12-A- relevant clause of the plaint. The plaintiff's case was that in the year1974 he commenced running Kirana shop in portion of the house owned earlier by one Ramibai widow of Ram Lal. In the eastern side of this shop the defendant was running a shop being tenant of the earlier owner Rami Bai. Plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 11-7-80 purchased the whole building described in para 1 of the plaint from Mst. Rami Bai and thus became owner of the whole building and landlord of the defendant tenant in respect of the portion and Kotha behind as described in para 2 of the plaint where the defendant was running a shop. The volume of business of the plaintiff since he opened the shop in the year 1974 had increased manifold and the small room measuring 10' x 9' described in para 5-A of the plaint was too small and inadequate for the shop and godown of the plaintiff inconvenient to the customers. The plaintiff, therefore, wanted to break the partition wall between the shop of the defendant and his own shop and make the shop larger. It was also submitted that in plaintiff's possession there is no sufficient space for storing goods of the shop and for the purpose the plaintiff had taken a room on rent in Agrawal Bhavan and another room in Digamber Khandelwal Dharm Shale. The plaintiff proposed to utilise the room behind the defendant's shop for storing his goods. The plaintiff's case further was that he was residing as a tenant in Hukumchand's house on rent and that he proposes to construct one storey over the house purchased by him for his residence. This construction could be made only after removing parapet over the building. The plaintiff by amendment made on 9-3-83 and 26-6-85 also pleaded that his wife had during pendency of the suit purchased residential house which did not belong to the plaintiff and was not suitable for non-residential purpose. Further, that at Sana wad except for the house as described in para 1 of the plaint the plaintiff had no other accommodation of his own at Sanawad for his growing business.

The plaintiff after serving notice filed suit for eviction of the defendant on grounds under clause (f) -- that accommodation let for non -- residential purpose is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose. of continuing his business and that he has no other suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in the city or town concerned and (h) -- that the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building and such building or re-building is not possible of being carried out without the accommodation being vacated, of sub-section 1 of S. 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (here-in-after called, 'the Act').

2. The defendant by written statement presented on 10-2-82 as subsequently amended on 4-7-85 resisted the claim for eviction made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's requirement of more accommodation for his shop and storing goods was denied and it was submitted that he had sufficient space for the shop and for storing goods and that he did not require more space and that he h