SHIV DAYAL, J.

This second appeal arises from a suit for eviction on the ground contained in section 12(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs could not establish that their requirement is bona fide or that they have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of their own in the city. The first appellate Court dismissed their appeal.

The plaintiffs are related as follows:

Munnilal

Gopilal Laxmichand

1. Motital 1. Babulal

2. Ramswaroop (Plaintiff No.1) 2. Bhagwandas (Plaintiff No. 2)

3. Hariram 3. Radheylal

4. Chhotelal 4. Bux Chand.

The suit accommodation is residential. It forms part of a big building situated in Danaoli, Lashkar. In the same vicinity is a big building in which the plaintiff Ramswaroop and Bhagwandas reside along with Gopilal and Laxmichand. In the plaint they say that it is not "convenient" for them to stay with their families in that house.

It has been found by the Courts below that the house in which the plaintiffs reside at present is their joint family property. Besides this, two other houses have been purchased in another locality, namely--Jayendra Ganj, Lashkar (vide sale-deeds Exs. D9 and D10). The house purchased under Ex. D10 has been purchased in the name of Motilal's wife and Ramswarup's wife and the house under Ex D9 has been purchased in the name of Babulal's wife and Bhagwandas's wife. The Courts below have found that the plaintiffs have no bona fide requirement, and further more, they have suitable alternative accommodation in which they can live (properties purchased by their wives). The Courts below have reached the conclusion that the eviction was really aimed at enhancement of rent.

Ramswarup and his wife have a separate living room; so also Bhagwandas and his wife have a separate living room in the house. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the entire family consists of ten couples and about 20 or 22 children. For about 42 members these 20 rooms are not sufficient and as regards the house purchased in Jayendra Ganj, he states that one of them is not yet vacant and the other is not suitable. Moreover, they are not in the same locality. If the plaintiffs want to shift to their own house, which is in the same locality, so that they may live in the neighbourhood of their father and uncle and brothers, they should not be compelled to shift to another locality. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention.

Section 12(1)(e) of the Act reads as follows:

that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned;

When the scheme of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is closely examined three things emerge quite clear:

(i) That this Act is enacted primarily for the protection of the tenant from eviction;

(ii) That a tenant who commits default in payment of rent or otherwise unscrupulously behaves and does not fulfil his obligations should forfeit the protection, and

(iii) That in case the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord, for instance, for his own occupation or for his business or for building or rebuilding etc. possession of the accommodation should be restored to the landlord.

Thus, there are provisions in the Act for the fulfilment of the third object so as to ensure that the landlord has his bona fide requirement fulfilled. But in this case the legislature has in its wisdom put checks so that the provision may not be misused. If I may say so, there are two ingredients in clause 12 (1) (e) and each one of them contains