1. Heard Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellants on the question of admission.

2. This is tenants' second appeal having lost from the both the Courts below.

3. The plaintiff filed suit for eviction that his sons have become major and are sitting idle, therefore, plaintiff required the suit accommodation to start the business of electrical goods for his sons as envisaged under section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

4. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff.

5. During pendency of the first appeal of tenants two applications were filed by them. First, under Order XL1 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to adduce additional evidence and second under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement.

6. Learned First Appellate Court heard learned counsel for the parties and dismissed the appeal not only on the merit, but the aforesaid applications have also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

7. In this manner this second appeal has been filed by the appellants.

8. Three points have been highlighted and pressed by Shri Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention of hi