( 1. ) THIS appeal is directed by the appellant/plaintiff under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17. 5. 2002 passed by the IIIrd Add1. District Judge Katni in Civil original Suit No. 17-A/2001 dismissing her suit for eviction filed against the respondents.

( 2. ) THE factual matrix of the case in short is that appellant filed a suit against the respondents for eviction in respect of some non-residential accommodation situated in Katni as described in the plaint contending that respondents are the monthly tenant in such premises at the rate of Rs. 900/-per month. The respondents being defaulter did not pay the rent of such accommodation Rs. 19800/- for the period 1-4-1992 to 31-1-1994. The accommodation in dispute became dilapidated in the lack of proper maintenance by the respondents. It requires major repairing which is not possible without vacating the premises. The appellant has sufficient fund of Rs. 50,000/- the estimated cost of such repairing. Besides this, the suit is also filed on the ground of bona fide and genuine requirement for the business and godown of her son for which she did not have any other alternate accommodation of her own in Katni. On asking the respondents to vacate the premises on the aforesaid ground by the appellant, the same was not vacated. On the contrary, they filed an application under section 37 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (in short the Act)before the Rent Controlling Authority, Katni just to harass the appellant, thereby they committed an act of nuisance. In such premises, the suit for eviction was filed on the grounds mentioned under section 12 (1) (a), (c), (f) and (g ).

( 3. ) IN the written statement, the respondents admitted the tenancy in the alleged premises but denied the fact of arrears of rent saying that the entire rent has been paid to the appellant. The alleged premises has already been repaired in compliance of the order of the Rent Controlling Authority, hence it does not require any further repairing. The alleged requirement of the appellant regarding his son is denied with the averment that her son is doing the business in his own shop situated near Gurudwara in Golbazar, Katni. The appellant has also given some shops of that house to other persons on rent for non-residential purposes. In pending suit by amendment it is pleaded that during pendency of the suit the appellant got vacated the adjoining premises under execution of the decree from new Delhi MP Transport Company. The same is also available with the appellant for the alleged need. Besides this, availability of some other alternate accommodations with the appellant are also pleaded. In addition, prayer for awarding Rs. 20,000/- as compensatory cost is made. Accordingly, the grounds of eviction mentioned by the appellant are denied.

( 4. ) IN view of the pleadings of the parties, as many as seven issues were framed by the trial Court. After recording the evidence, at the stage of appreciation, the suit of the appellant was dismissed on all the grounds, on which the appellant has come to this Court with this appeal.

( 5. ) IN pendency of the appeal, the appellant moved IA No. 864/04 under order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 of the CPC to amend the plaint explaining the circumstance that available alternate accommodation with her is not in a condition to fulfil the alleged need of her son. The same has been replied on behalf of the respondents by denying the averments of it. In addition it is pleaded that with mala fide intention the appellant removed the roof of such available alternate accommodation which she got vacated from some other tenant under execution of the decree of eviction. Such LA is also to be considered in this appeal.

( 6. ) SHRI N. K. Patel, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri S. B. Patel, while arguing the case fairly conceded that the findings of the trial Court regarding section 12 (1) (a) and (c) of the Act are not under