( 1. ) THIS is defendants second appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court by order dated 19-8-1999 at the time of admission of this appeal:-

" (1) Whether the Courts below, in view of the admissions of the plaintiffs and their witnesses, have erred in passing decree of eviction on the ground under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ? (2)

Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the burden of establishing availability of alternative accommodation lay upon the defendants?"

( 2. ) THE facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred to above arc that plaintiffs Sameer Kumar Pal and Suresh Chand Pal have purchased the suit house bearing No. 1214, Corporation Chowk, Wright Town, Jabalpur by registered sale-deed dated 31-12-1991 from its original owners. The defendants were their tenants in the suit accommodation and were carrying on their business therein.

( 3. ) THE plaintiffs case was that they require the suit accommodation for carrying on the business of sweets and for running a restaurant. It was stated by them that they have no other non-residential accommodation of their own for this purpose. The defendants case was that there is an accommodation commonly known as "madras Hotel" which was purchased by the plaintiffs father Laxminarayan Pal and his brothers. That accommodation is joint family property of the plaintiffs and their father. The defendants pointed out some other houses and shops, but those are either residential or rented and, therefore, a full description of those properties need not be given.

( 4. ) THERE is a concurrent finding of fact of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by which it has been held that the ground for eviction under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has been established.

( 5. ) IN this second appeal the decree of eviction is assailed on the ground that the plaintiffs have alternative accommodation of their own in their occupation and, therefore, their need is not bona fide. It has been argued that the property held by the plaintiffs father Laxminarayan Pal, commonly known as "madras Hotel", is suitable in all respects for carrying on the business of sweets and restaurant. That accommodation is admitted to be of bigger size and just adjacent to the suit accommodation. The only ground on which there has been a debate between the two parties is that the suit accommodation is owned by the plaintiffs father and not by the plaintiffs.

( 6. ) AFTER considering the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of both the Courts below that the accommodation known as "madras Hotel" does not belong to the plaintiffs, is perverse. The Trial Court has written a very cryptic judgment and has not given any clear finding on this point. The First Appellate Court in Para 27 of its judgment has held that "madras Hotel" belongs to the plaintiffs father Laxminarayan Pal which he has received in partition between himself and his brothers. The First Appellate Court has not closely examined the question, whether the accommodation, known as "madras Hotel", can be said to be an alternative accommodation to meet business need of the plaintiffs. Therefore, it becomes the duty of this Court to enter upon the evidence of plaintiff Subhash Chandra Pal (P. W. 1) and his father Laxminarayan Pal (P. W. 3 ). Subhash Chandra Pal (P. W. 1) has deposed in para 16 that "madras Hotel" belongs to his father and, therefore, it does not concern him. In cross-examination in para 30 he admits that he is living with his father and he is also carrying on business with him. Laxminarayan Pal (P. W. 3) has deposed that "madras Hotel" is owned by him. It was acquired by him and his two brothers and thereafter in partition it came to his share. There is release deed dated 14-10-1987 (Ex. P-7) in respect of that property. A perusal of the release deed reveals that the said p