Bhave, J.

1. This second appeal is by the defendant.

2. The defendant is the tenant of the plaintiffs and occupies non-residential premises. Plaintiff No. 3 has graduated in law and has started practice. The suit for ejectment was filed on the ground that the premises were required by the plaintiff No.3 for locating his office. Under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 Section 12 (1) (f), nonresidential accommodation can only be acquired when the landlord needs the premises for his business or that of his dependents and relations. A number of defences were raised before the lower Courts; but all of them were negatived and a decree for ejectment was passed against the defendant. That decree is under challange before me.

3. The only point pressed before me is as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to acquire non-residential premises for the purpose of locating a lawyer's office. In other words, the controversy is as to whether professional or vocational requirement is business requirement. Shri A.P. Sen, Advocate General, appearing for the appellant, urged that the word 'business' has by now acquired a fixed connotation and can only mean 'commercial activity'. It was further submitted that section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act was enacted to restrict the landlord from ejecting the tenant at his will and that the provisions should therefore, be interpreted strictly and in favour of the tenant. It is also urged that when the language of a statute is clear, the Courts are bound to give effect to it.

4. Section 12, subsection (1), gives as many as sixteen grounds on the basis of which a suit for ejectment of a tenant can be filed. Grounds (e) and (f) are the only two grounds which permit ejedment of a tenant when the accommodation is required by the landlord for his own use. But here a distinction has been made between 'residential' and 'non-residential' accommodation. If the need of the landlord is for residence, he can ask for ejectment of a tenant occupying residential accommodation only; if his need is for non-residential purposes, a tenant occupying non-residential premises alone can be ejected. Thus, if a lawyer wants accommodation for his office or a doctor wants it for establishing a hospital, it can not be said that be wants it for residential purposes, He will have, therefore, to acquire non-residential premises only. If section 12 (1) (f) is interpreted in the manner suggested by the Advocate-general, the result would be that those who desire to start their own vocation or profession will be denied the right of starting their profession or vocation in the premises belonging to them if the premises are already let out. The Advocate-General says that it is the unfortunate result of defective drafting or that perhaps the Legislature wanted to be more liberal in the case of commercial needs than in the case of vocational or professional needs.

5. After hearing both the sides. I have come to the conclusion that the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained. The expression "business" has not been defined under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Under fiscal statutes such as, Income-tax Act, there is no doubt that the expressions "business", "profession" and "vocation" are used denoting thereby that they have different and mutually exclusive connotation. But the expressions used in one statute cannot be interpreted in the same manner in another statute unless both the statues are pari materia. The words and expressions used in a statute arc 'necessarily required to be interpreted in the context in which they are used. Similarly, words, if they are susceptible of wide connotation, must be interpreted that way if there is nothing in the statute to warrant the giving of limited connotation to those words. Grounds (e) & (f) of S. 12 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act are designed to make it possible for a landlord to acquire his own property for his bona fide need. The