( 1. ) THE appellants/defendants preferred this appeal under Section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26-2-2005 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Regular Appeal No. 6-A/03, affirming the judgment and decree under Section 12 (1) (f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short the Act) passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal in Civil Original Suit No. 46-A/98, vide dated 30-4-01.

( 2. ) RESPONDENT/plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/appellant on the ground available under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act for non-residential bonafide genuine requirement of respondent No. 3, Mukesh Kumar regarding shop situated at Gujrati Bazar Katra Ward, Sagar as mentioned in the plaint.

( 3. ) WHILE in the written statement by admitting the tenancy, the aforesaid ground for eviction was denied by the appellant. It has also been contended that respondent have various alternative accommodation in their family in the same town. The disputed shop is very small, Le. , 13 x 5 ft. , in which the appellants are running the medical shop, the same is not suitable to the respondents for their alleged need as they want to start General Stores and spice shop. Hence, the alleged need is neither bonafide nor genuine in any manner and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

( 4. ) IN view of the aforesaid pleadings after framing the issues the evidence was recorded, on appreciation of it the suit was decreed on the aforesaid ground by the Trial Court. On appeal by affirming the same it was dismissed. Hence this appeal is preferred by the tenant/appellant.

( 5. ) SHRI Rohit Arya, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Lai, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the question of bonafide genuine requirement of respondents has not been examined by the Courts below on proper appreciation of the available evidence on record. The shop in dispute is very small and the same is not suitable for the alleged need of the respondents as they wants to start the business of General Stores and spice shop, in a small place such business is not possible but the same has not been considered. Beside this, it was also submitted that in the family of the respondents various alternative accommodations are available in the same town. The same have been proved by admissible evidence but it was not considered with proper approach and contrary to it the decree has been passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court has also committed error in confirming the same. According to him alleged need of respondents should have been examined objectively but the Court below have not considered this aspect in passing the decree. In support of his contention he has cited a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, reported in AIR1999 SC 2507 , JT1999 (5 )SC 201 , 1999 (4 ) SCALE334 , (1999 )6 SCC222 , [1999 ]3 SCR1260 , 1999 (2 )UJ1261 (SC ), and submitted that in view of availability of alternate accommodation with the respondents the question of bonafide genuine requirement of respondents is still open before this Court and prayed for admission of this appeal. In alternate he has also submitted that on dismissal of appeal at this stage some reasonable time be given for vacating the premises and prayed for 9 months time for the same.

( 6. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel on perusing the record it appears from the pleadings and the evidence that whatever other alternate accommodation as said and alleged by the appellant are not belonging to the respondents although some of the accommodation belonging to other members of their family or joint family. In view of the settled position of law that the house of the wife could not be treated as alternate accommodation for the husband as laid down by this Court in the matter of Rajkumar v. Ved Prakash, reported in 1982 JLJ 451, and house of joint family could also not be treated as alternate accomm