A.R. Tiwari, J. Infecundity and infelicity in two Courts below have impleaded the plaintiffs to prefer this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (For short 'the Code'), claiming subversion of the impugned decree and urging eviction on the grounds specified in section 12(1)(f) and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'),

2. The appeal is thus, directed against the judgment and decree, rendered by the Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore on 2.4.85 in C.R.A. No. 3-A/84, in affirmance of the judgment and decree passed by the Second Civil Judge class I1nd Indore on 27.10.80 in C.O,S. No.4-N73.

3. Admission was secured on the under-noted substantial question of law –

"Whether on the fads and in the circumstances of the case, the Court below erred in law in holding that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a case for eviction on the ground specified in sections 12(1)(f) 'and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.?"

4. Adumbrated in brief, the facts are that the suit-House No. 144, Jawahar Marg, Indore was owned by Abdul Rashid. He was recorded as an owner in the records of the Municipal Corporation, Indore. Vide sa