( 1. ) IN this Letters Patent Appeal upon a certificate granted by a learned Single Judge of this Court under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the question raised is as to the interpretation of section 12 (1) (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It is directed against the decree, dated 9-4-1973, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Second Appeal No. 274 of 1971, arising out of the decree, 14-10-1971, passed by the Additional District Judge, Ujjain, in Civil First Appeal No. 11-A of 1971, arising out of the original decree, dated 16-11-1970 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class I, Ujjain, in Civil Suit No. 192 A of 1969.

( 2. ) THE relevant facts for understanding the question involved in this appeal are as follows. The respondent is the landlord of house bearing Municipal No. 1/302/b, situated in the city of Ujjain. The predecessor of the appellants, Pannalal, was the tenant, who held two different portions of the house as a tenant on a monthly rent under two separate contracts of tenancy. One of them related to the residential accommodation, while the other related to the non-residential accommodation for business purposes. The monthly rent of the residential accommodation was Rs. 5/- while that of the non-residential accommodation was Rs. 7/- per month. The respondent filed a suit for eviction on 16-10-1968, for evicting the tenant from both the portions. The learned Civil Judge, by judgment, dated 16-11-1970, dismissed the entire suit for residential as also for non-residential accommodation. The respondent, therefore, being aggrieved by that judgment filed Civil First Appeal no. 11/a/ of 1971, which was partly allowed. The learned Additional district Judge decreed the respondents claim in respect of non-residential accommodation, but dismissed it with respect to the residential accommodation. The legal representatives of the tenant, therefore, filed Second Appeal no. 274 of 1971 and the respondent landlord filed Second Appeal 298 of 1971. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the tenants appeal and allowed the landlords appeal. As such, the decree in respect of residential accommodation in favour of the landlord has become final and in the present appeal we are only concerned with the decree relating to nonresidential accommodation, which the legal representatives of the original tenant challenged on the grounds to be discussed presently.

( 3. ) IT may be relevant to reproduce the provisions of clause 13 (3) (vi) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, which is as follows:

"13 (1 ). No landlord shall except, with the previous written permission of the.

. . . . . of the Controller,- (a) Give notice to a tenant determining the lease or determine the lease if the lease is expressed to be determinable at his option; or (b) Where the lease is determinable by efflux of the time limited thereby, require the tenant to vacate the house by process of law or otherwise if the tenant is willing to continue the lease on the same terms and conditions. (2 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . (3 ). If after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied- (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . (iv ). . . . . . . . . . .

(v ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (vi ). . . that the landlord needs the house or a portion thereof for the purpose of- (a) his bona fide residence, provided he is not occupying any other residential house of his own in the city or town concerned; or (b ). . . . . . . . . . . (c) a bona fide business of his own which he intends to start or is already carrying on in the city or town concerned or-He shall grant the landlord permission to give notice to determine the lease as required by sub-clause (1 ).

( 4. ) THEREAFTER the Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act, 1955, was applied to the entire area of Madhya Pradesh, including the Mahakoshal region, with effect from 1-4-1959. Before that the Madhya Bharat Accommodation