1. The instant second appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below, assailing the judgment and decree dated 6th September, 2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.34-A/11; whereby, the judgment and decree dated 23.9.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.15-A/2010 has been confirmed.

2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that respondent-plaintiff Ramkrishan Sharma s/o Late Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, serving the Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior was due to retire on 30th November, 2010, therefore, had instituted an eviction suit in respect of suit shop situated in the building No.39/593 (New No.57/593) Madhoganj, Lalshkar, Gwalior on the ground of arrears of the rent [12(1)(a)], bona fide need for non-residential purpose to run cloth shop after his retirement [12(1)(f)] and also as there was requirement for renovation of part of the suit premises [12(1)(h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”)]. Father of the appellant-defendant Chhotelal had taken the suit shop on monthly rent of Rs.16/- in the year 1974 from the forefathers of the plaintiff. After the death of Chhotelal, the present defendant is running a cloth shop under the name and style of Radha Sari. Respondent-plaintiff in para 1 of the plaint very specifically pleaded that house wherein suit shop is located is of his ownership and he is in possession thereof. In paragraph No.2, it is pleaded that defendant is tenant in the suit shop at a monthly rent of Rs.16/-. In para 3 of the plaint, details of the tenancy has been pleaded. In para 5 bona fide need for non-commercial purpose to run a cloth business in the suit shop has been pleaded. Apart from this, the fact related to the arrears of rent and need for reconstruction/renovation of the suit premises were also pleaded.

3. Defendant in written statement has admitted averments made in para 1 of the plaint i.e. ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit shop. In paras 2, 3 and 4, ownership of the plaintiff and tenancy on monthly rent of Rs.16/- in respect of suit shop has also been admitted. In paras 7 and 16, averments are made that though rent was advanced to the plaintiff, but he refused to accept the same. Further in para 7, contrary to the statement made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is said that plaintiff is not entitled to seek eviction as he is not ownership of the suit shop and in para 13 made vague and evasive statement that suit shop belong to the the temple without specifying which temple and on what basis such averment was made.

4. Parties led evidence.

5. Trial Court after discussing the entire evidence brought on record recorded following findings :

(1) Eviction suit under section 12(1)(a) of the Act for arrears of rent is rejected;

(2) Eviction suit for the need of reconstruction under section 12(1)(h) of the Act is rejected;

(3) Eviction suit on the ground of bona fide need under section 12(1)(f) of the Act for bona fide need for non-residential purpose has been decreed.

6. It is apt to mention at this juncture that during pendency of the suit, defendant filed an application under Order VI rule 17 of CPC for deleting the admission made as regard ownership of the suit premises and instead it be permitted to substitute that plaintiff is not the owner but the State Government is the owner and he is tenant of the State Government for last more than 100 years of Badewale Hanuman Mandir. This application was moved while the pleadings were complete, issues were framed, plaintiff had already submitted the statement on oath under Order XVIII rule 4 CPC and the trial was at the advance stage. The trial Court by a detailed order dated 23.2.2001 rejected the application. It was found that the defendant has admitted the plaintiff as the owner of the suit shop, besides landlord-tenant relationship and the defendant cannot be allowed to take a somersault at the lalte stage of the trial for which there is no explanation. The trial Court has referred to a