Acquisition of accommodation by the tenant's wife can be considered as acquisition by the tenant if it is available to him for bona fide use.

C.K. Prasad, J.

1. This is defendant's second appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff-respondent filed suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground that tenant has acquired vacant possession of accommodation suitable for his residence, the accommodation in question requires to be reconstructed, which is not possible without the eviction of the tenant and the landlord requires the suit premises for its bona fide need which are grounds for eviction Under Section 12(1)(i)(g) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respectively. Civil Judge, Class II, Bilaspur by judgment and decree dated 22-8-1994 passed in Civil Suit No. 127-A of 1994 decreed the suit after recording the finding in favour of the plaintiff on all counts. Tenant preferred appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. Sixth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur by judgment and decree dated 27-9-1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 18-A of 1996 maintained the decree of the trial Court on the grounds enumerated Under Section 12 (1)(i) of the Act, but reversed the finding of the trial Court in relation to the other two grounds. Aggrieved by the same defendant has preferred this appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and by order dated 7-1-1997 the appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law :

"Whether the appellant is liable to be evicted Under Section 12(1)(i) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 merely because his wife and children are residing in the newly constructed house?"

2. Shri Trivedi appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the plaintiff having not pleaded that the accommodation acquired by the tenant is suitable for his residence, condition of Section 12(1)(i) of the Act is not satisfied and accordingly the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are fit to be reversed. Section 12(1)(i) of the Act reads as follows:

"12. Restriction on eviction of tenant. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:

(a)....................

(b)....................

(c)....................

(d)....................

(e)....................

(f)....................

(g)....................

(h)....................

(i) That the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or, been allotted an accommodation suitable for his residence."

A plain reading of Section 12(1)(i) of the Act makes it clear that acquisition of vacant possession by the tenant of an accommodation suitable for his residence is one of the grounds for eviction and before a decree of eviction can be passed, the requirement of the aforesaid section has to be fulfilled.

3. Tenant has been defined Under Section 2(i) of the Act which reads as follows:-

"2(i) "tenant" means a person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any accommodation is, or but for a contract express or implied, would be payable for any accommodation and includes any person occupying the accommodation as a sub-tenant and also any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy whether before or after the commencement of this Act; but shall not include any person against whom any order or decree for eviction has been made."

Shri Trivedi counsel for the appellant submits that as the wife of the tenant is not covered by definition of tenant aforesaid, purchase by the wife cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of considering the ground of eviction contemplated Under Section 12(1)(i) of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sachhidanand Garg v. Govindlalji Maharaj, 1982 MPLJ 129. My attention has been draw