Dr. T.N. Singh, J.--1. Defendant/appellant is a tenant for whose eviction two Courts have passed decrees under section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, the' Act'. Trial Court found case of landlord/plaintiff (herein respondent) proved under clauses' (a), (d) and (t) and not proved under clause (k) of section 12 (1), appellate Court passed decree only on two grounds envisaged under clauses (a) and (d).

2. By way of preface, it is necessary to say a few words also at the outset about cross-objection of the respondent/plaint. If The contention which is seriously pressed in the cross-objection is that the lower appellate Court acted illegally in exercising its powers under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC by allowing the defendant/appellant to bring on record the subsequent event that during pendency of the appeal, alternative accommodation for business had become available to the plaintiff and, therefore, the "bona fide" requirement of the plaintiff, as claimed by him, had been fulfilled. In regard thereto, it is stated that the shop which was vacated by M/s. Prasad Papers on 23.8.1982 could be used for starting sweet-meat business of partner Kailash Narayan