Sujoy Paul, J.

This appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2008 passed in RCS No. 04-A/2004.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by this judgment and contended that the respondent/plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the bona fide need of the suit property, ownership on the said property and non-availability of other suitable accommodation. Ms. Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel placed reliance on Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation & Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter after referred as "the Act") and contended that Section 12 is couched in the mandatory language and unless the essential ingredients of Section 12 are satisfied, no decree for eviction of tenant can be passed.

3. To elaborate aforesaid contention, learned senior counsel contended that the suit property was originally owned by Shri Chotelal, father of present plaintiff. Shri Chotelal died on 1.10.1966, his wife also died on 13.09.1976. As per plaint averments, an oral partition has taken place between two brothers, namely, plaintiff and Kundan Lal on 30.11.1992. The instant suit was filed on 28.06.2004. The municipal record shows that Kundan Lal is owner of the suit property. It is argued that this factum of ownership is established in view of production of relevant record of municipal corporation. The plaintiff during his cross-examination admitted this fact that in the record of municipal corporation, the property is shown in the name of his brother, Kundan Lal. Thus, the factum of "ownership" is not established by the plaintiff. By placing reliance on 2002 (3) SCC 375, [Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash] and on 2012 (2) MPLJ 460 [Dayal Das (dead) through Lrs' Smt. Kamla Chenani and Others v. Rajendra Prasad Gautam], it is urged that in a suit for eviction, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove his ownership in the same manner in which it is required to be proved in a suit for declaration of title. Yet there must be some material to establish ownership which is an essential ingredient for invoking Clause (f).

4. The next contention of the appellant is that the adjacent shop was vacated by Shankar Electricity Wala and plaintiff used this shop for his business for about six months. Thereafter, this very shop was given on rent to Shri Jitu Sahu who opened a tea shop in the said place. The shop was also vacated by Gopal Jain and despite availability of the shop, the plaintiff did not conduct his business from the said shop. This shows that alternative shop was very much available with the plaintiff and there was no bona fide need for the plaintiff. Reliance is placed on 1979 MPLJ 314 (Chirongilal v. Shankerlal), 2000 (1) MPHT 531 (Sarju Prasad Patel v. Nanakchand and others) and 2007 (2) MPLJ 566 (Vinod Kumar Agrawal v. Chandrakant Pandey and another). The appellant contended that the Court below framed four issues, namely, - (i) whether the defendant is a tenant of the suit property ? (ii) whether plaintiff has a bona fide need of suit property for doing his own business ? (iii) whether plaintiff has any other alternative land in Municipal area of Bhopal ? (iv) whether defendant has an alternative possession of suit property ? The issue No. 1 and 2 were answered in affirmative whereas answer of other issues were in negative. Learned Senior Counsel attacked the finding of issue No. 1 wherein the Court below held that the plaintiff has proved his ownership on the strength of Exhibit P-1 & P-2. It is argued that Ex.P/1 & P/2 were executed way back on 21.02.1958 and 10.06.1959 respectively whereas as per the plaint averments itself, the oral participation took place on 30.11.1982. Thus, the finding aforesaid is perverse in nature and Exhibit P/1 and P/2, by no stretch of imagination, can be the basis for establishing any oral partition. It is further argued that the finding of Issue No. 1 is liable to be interfered with in view of the palpable perversity regarding appreci