A.P. Sen, J.-

1. This appeal by the defendant, is directed against a decree of the IVth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dated 24th March, 1967, affirming the judgment and decree of the 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, dated 19th November, 1966.

2. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are these : The plaintiffs initiated this action for eviction of the defendant from the 2 front rooms, at 1131, Napier Town, Jabalpur, which were let out to him for business purposes, on the ground that they now require the same for locating a lawyer's office for Kumari Permeshwari Surey, who is a member of there family and a practising advocate of this Court. The plaintiffs have admittedly their residential house in the same compound where the suit premises are situated, but it is far removed from the road being somewhat in the interior and it is not suitable for locating an office. The suit premises are detached from the residential house of plaintiffs. Apart from denying that the alleged need is a genuine requirement, the defendant asserts that the need is a residential need. On these facts, the Court~ below have upheld the plaintiff's claim and granted to them a decree for ejectment.

3. Before dealing with this appeal, it is necessary to set out a few more facts. The finding that the plaintiff's requirement is a felt need and, therefore, a genuine requirement was not challenged before me nor has the correctness of the conclusion that there is no suitable place in their residential house for locating an office, been questio:1ed. At the trial, the defendant cross-examined Kumui Permeshwari Surey (P.W. 3) for the purpose of showing that offices of some other lawyers were located in their residential house with a view to establish that a lawyer's chamber is, invariably, a part of his residence and, therefore, the plaintiffs' need cannot be non-residential. That line of attack has not be been pursued in this appeal. In dealing with this aspect, the Court below has rightly observed :-

"In my view an office of an advocate could come under both the categories of residential as well as non-residential accommodations under which broad heads of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, has divided the accommodations to which it applies. In case the office is detached from the residential house of an advocate, or is far removed, I fail to see how it could be called a residential accommodation. Non-residential accommodation has not been defined in the Act, and all that is understood by the term "non-residential accommodation" as used in the M. P. Accommodation Control Act is that all those accommodations that are not residential in nature would be non-residential. An office of a lawyer taken by itself could not be one for a dwelling purpose and, therefore, I am of the view that such an accommodation taken by itself would not be called a residential one"

4. The main point urged before me is one of principle, i.e., whether the word "business" in section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, include, the practice of a profession. It is contended by the appellant that the word 'business’ connotes a trading commercial activity and, therefore, clause (f) has no application where the landlord is carrying on a profession or needs the premises for a member of hi, family for a like purpose. The contention is devoid of substance and cannot be accepted for reasons I shall presently state.

5. The construction suggested does violence to the plain language of the section. The word "business" has many shades of meaning. It seems to me that the word in this section is one which ought not to receive a narrow construction. If the word were to be interpreted in a restricted sense, that would deprive a certain class, i.e. persons following a learned profession or practising a liberal art, of the benefit of the section. Thus, a lawyer would not have the beneficial use of his own property for establishing his Advocate's chambe