( 1. ) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal Under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree, dated 30th October, 1984 passed by V Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No. 20-A of 1981, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 7-8-1981, passed by 8th Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 47-A of 1981, dismissing the appellants suit for eviction of the respondents from the suit shop.

( 2. ) THE shop in dispute is known as House No. 58, Sadar Bazar, Jabalpur and is admittedly in occupation of the respondents who are tenants thereof and are carrying on their dry cleaning business under the name and style of sunshine Dry Cleaners. There is no dispute that the appellant is the owner and landlord in relation to the suit house. She filed the suit for eviction of respondents on the ground that she needs the suit shop bona fide tailoring business of her son Mohd. Idrees for which she has no other alternative accommodation of her own in the City. It was also her case that the son was carrying on business in a small place which is situated in a lane and is otherwise inadequate for his business needs. The respondents denied the claim and submitted that not only the present shop of Mohd; Idrees was suitable for purposes of his requirements but they have another accommodation in their possession. Learned trial Judge on consideration of evidence adduced by the parties held that the appellant needed the suit shop bona fide for her sons business and that the present shop of her son cannot be treated as suitable alternative accommodation. On these findings the suit was decreed. The learned lower appellate Court was of the opinion that though the need of the appellants son for business was real, the same can be satisfied by the present shop itself and therefore, there was no justification for eviction of the respondents. On these findings the decree passed by the trial Court was set-aside and suit of the appellant was dismissed. That is how the matter is before this Court for its consideration.

( 3. ) THIS Court while admitting this appeal for final hearing on 2-4-1985 framed the following substantial question of law for its consideration : "whether the first appellate Court erred in law in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court for eviction of the defendants from the suit accommodation on ground specified in clause (f) of Section 12 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?"

Both the parties have been fully heard on the aforesaid question which is the only question requiring decision of this Court.

( 4. ) THERE are many misgivings about our rent laws. There is a sizable section of our community which includes lawyers and judges as well, who term it pro-tenant. Behind this thinking is the realization that between the landlord and tenant, the tenant is the weaker party and since Rent Laws are beneficial legislations, they are pro-tenant. This section does not hesitate in carrying the logic further and holds that our Rent Laws are anti-landlord. This, however, is not the correct view of the matter. That our Rent Laws are beneficent legislations is a fact beyond doubt. These laws are neither pro-tenant nor anti-landlord. These laws aim at solving a social problem i. e. housing, of national importance. Large number of our people require accommodation. Their economic condition does not permit them to build them for themselves and therefore, they necessarily depend on others. That their economically disadvantageous position should not result in their exploitation, is, of course, the concern of this law. To this extent the Rent Laws certainly protect tenants who are weaker of the two parties. But the need of the tenant would not be satisfied if those who have the financial capacity and resources to build houses do not build them. Under the circumstances, these Laws must also aim at encouraging landlords so that they continue to build and make them available for t