( 1. ) THIS is an appeal filed by the defendants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 10-1-2003 passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Khandwa in Civil Suit No. 15-A/2000 whereby the plalntiffs suit seeking eviction of the defendants appellants has been decreed.

( 2. ) THE plalntiff filed a suit against the defendants stating therein that he is owner of the suit house situated at Block No. 11 Plot No. 25/1 Ward Padawa in City of Khandwa. The suit house was let out by him to the defendants for residence of Nurses to be used as Nurses hostel. It was agreed between the parties that the monthly rent of the suit house would be Rs. 3594/- for initial 9 months from 1-10-1998 to 30-6-1999 and shall increase by 10% from 1-7-1999 and was liable to be increased by 10% after completion of every three years. The plalntiff further pleaded that the suit house is required bonafidely by him for his residence and for residence of his family members and also for starting his business of supply of building materials and sanitary fittings. It is also averred that the suit house is bonafidely required by him for making substantial additions and alterations of it, which cannot be carried out without the same being vacated. The plalntiff further averred that he has no alternative accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city of Khandwa. Thus, the plalntiff sought decree of eviction against the defendants under Section 12 (1) (e), (f) and (h) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (act for short ).

( 3. ) THE defendants filed written statement and did not dispute about the rate of rent. They stated that the need of the plalntiff is not bonafide and he wants to increase the rent. It is further averred that the plalntiff has other accommodation of his own in his possession and as such he is not entitled for decree of eviction. It is further averred that the suit house was let out for residential purpose for Nurses hostel, in the circumstances, the plalntiff cannot seek eviction for non-residential purpose. The defendants further averred that the plalntiff has not prepared any estimate for additions and alterations in the suit house. It is also averred that unless the plalntiff proves availability of fund he is not entitled for decree of eviction. On the basis of the pleadings the Trial Court framed as many as 10 issues and after recording the evidence led by the parties decreed the plalntiffs suit on all the grounds. Feeling aggrieved the defendants have filed this appeal.

( 4. ) SHRI L. D. S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate contended on behalf of the appellants defendants that the plalntiff respondent has failed to prove his bonafide requirement. The plalntiff has alternative accommodation available of his own for occupation in the city of Khandwa and as such the decree passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. He contended that the suit house was let out for only for the residential purpose, in the circumstances, the decree for eviction on the basis of composite need under Section 12 (1) (e) and (f) could not have been passed.

( 5. ) SHRI Alok Aradhe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent plalntiff contended that from the evidence of plalntiff and his witnesses the bonafide need of the plalntiff for residence, for starting business and for substantial additions and alterations is made out. He submits that even if it is established that a landlord requires a part of the accommodation let out and the requirement is for the purpose for which the accommodation was let out a landlord becomes entitled to seek eviction from the entire accommodation. In support he placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Jagjit Kumar v. Jagdishchandra 1982 JLJ 319. He also placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Pravita Devi (Smt.) v. T. V. Krishnan JT1996 (1 )SC 764 , (1996 )5 SCC353 and of this Court in case of Radheshyam v. Ramakant 2004 (3)