( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed by the tenant challenging judgment and decree dated 29-1-1999 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/96, whereby the First Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 8-4-1996 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 1-A/94.

( 2. ) THE briefs facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed the present suit for ejectment against the appellants-tenants alleging that dharmshala is situated namely Kashiram Biharilal Saraf Dharmshala, which is a registered trust. There is a room in the dharmshala in a round shape which the defendant is a tenant paying rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. The tenancy starts from first of the month. The said premises were let to the defendant for non-residential purpose.

( 3. ) IN the plaint, it is alleged that plaintiff requires the suit accommodation for the office of manager and no other suitable accommodation is available for that purpose. It is alleged that the manager will sit in the office and manage the record and documents of the trust. The said room is near on the front gate of the dharmshala and therefore no suitable accommodation is available for the said purpose. It is alleged that the defendant was arrears of rent. According to the plaintiff, the rent was due from 1-11-1982. A notice demanding arrears of rent was sent on 21-2-1983 and was served on the defendant on 24-2-1983. It is alleged that even after service of notice, the defendant neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent, hence the present suit was filed for ejectment on the ground of Section 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (f) and 12 (1) (b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and some other grounds.

( 4. ) THE two Courts below after appreciating the evidence-passed a decree on the ground of Section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (f) of the Act, hence this appeal.

( 5. ) THIS appeal is admitted by this Court on 24-7-2001 on the following substantial questions of law :

(i) Whether suit by independent trustee of a Trust without presuming trustee of a party, is maintainable ? (2) Whether in the absence of registration of Public Trust, suit could be continued without following the provisions of Section 32 of the M. P. Public Trust Act ?

( 6. ) AT the time of final hearing, this Court has come to the conclusion that two some substantial questions of law does arise for consideration, hence on 23-8-2005 after hearing the matter in part, two additional substantial questions of law were framed, which are as under :

(i) Whether the Court below has erred in granting the decree in favour of respondent on the ground of Section 12 (1) (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act when as per the admission of the plaintiff the tenant has tendered the entire rent due within two months from the date of service of notice ? (ii) Whether a decree under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act can be passed in favour of the plaintiff for bonafide need for starting business of the Manager of the Trust ? Thereafter the matter was finally heard on 30-8-2005.

( 7. ) AS regards questions framed on 24-7-2001 on the ground of maintainability of the suit, questions framed on 23-8-2005 relates to availability of the of ground under Section 12 (1) of the Act. From perusal of the judgment of two Courts below, I find that the question about the maintainability of the suit were not at all raised by the defendant in the present firm. There are no pleadings, about the question whether the trust is public trust or not. In such circumstances, this Court deems it fit to first answer the question about the availability of the ground under Section 12 (1) of the Act.

( 8. ) AS regards ground under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the ground under Section 12 (1)

(a) and 12 (1) (f) of the Act do not exist or made out by the plaintiff and if as per plaint allega