( 1. ) THIS Second Appeal has been filed by the tenant against whom a judgment and decree of eviction have been passed by the Fourth Civil Judge, Class -II, sagar on 1-5-2003 in Civil Suit No. 103-A/2001 and affirmed by the First appellate Court, Sagar, by the judgment and decree dated 31-3-2005 passed in civil Appeal No. 58-A/2004.

( 2. ) THE brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, are that the appellant/defendant was inducted as tenant in part of house No. 308 on 1-7-1988 on Rs. 400/- per month as rent by the husband of respondent/plaintiff smt. Usha Mukhariya. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff gave a notice of eviction to the appellant/defendant on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide requirement of the accommodation by the respondent/plaintiff for non-residential purpose of her son. As the notice went un-replied, a suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking eviction on the grounds mentioned under sections 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The appellant/tenant filed a written statement in which it was alleged that the respondent/plaintiff was not the landlord as the appellant/defendant had been inducted as a tenant by her husband and that the accommodation in question was not required by the respondent/plaintiff for bonafide non-residential use as he had already acquired vacant possession of two rooms in the same house. The Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 1-5-2003 decreed the suit under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act, by recording a finding in the affirmative in respect of bonafide requirement of the respondent/plaintiff for non-residential purpose, but dismissed the suit as far as the ground under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act was concerned by giving a finding against the respondent/plaintiff. On an appeal being filed by the appellant/defendant, the judgment and decree of the Trial court has been affirmed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-3-2005, hence this second appeal.

( 3. ) THIS Court, by order dated 28-8-2006, admitted the appeal on the following two substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether both the Courts below erred in ignoring the admission of the landlord regarding the alternative accommodation in Para 7 of her deposition wherein she has stated that-

(ii) Whether both the Courts below committed error in not considering that the plaintiff did not give any evidence to the effect that aforesaid vacant portion is not reasonably suitable for the requirement of the son and daughter-in-law of the landlord ?"

( 4. ) SUBSEQUENTLY, by order dated 17-9-2008 an additional question of law was framed, which is to the following effect:-

"did the plaintiff become owner within the meaning of Section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, of the suit premises during the life time of her husband on the basis of alleged family settlement (which is not on record) and the municipal entries and is whether entitled to a decree for eviction under the said proviso ?"

( 5. ) IN respect of the aforementioned substantial questions of law it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant that the respondent/plaintiff did not, at any point of time, plead or prove that she does not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation in her occupation in the city or town as required by the provisions of Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act nor did she give any evidence or make any statement to the effect that the vacant portion of the accommodation which had come into her possession was not reasonably suitable for the requirement of her son and daughter-in-law in spite of the fact that she had admitted the fact of coming into possession of two rooms in the same accommodation in Para 7 of her deposition. It is further submitted that as per the contract of tenancy the appellant/defendant had been inducted as a tenant by the husband of the respondent namely Dr. Mahendr