1. The appellant/tenant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2017 passed in First Appeal No.12A/2016 by the First Additional District Judge, Mungawali, District Ashoknagar reversing the judgment and decree dated 2.2.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.8A/2013 by the First Civil Judge, Mungawali. By lower appellate Court the suit filed by the landlord/plaintiff for eviction on the ground mentioned in section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) has been decreed.

2. Undisputedly, present appellant/tenant was a tenant in the suit accommodation for non-residential purpose in the disputed shop in a house situated in Kanchan Gali ward No.14 of town Mungawali and landlord Satish Kumar had purchased the house containing suit-accommodation in the year 2007 and, thereafter, appellant was paying rent to the plaintiff.

3. A suit for eviction and recovery of rent was filed by the respondent/plaintiff in respect of the disputed shop on the grounds envisaged under section 12(1) (a) and section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, on pleadings that defendant had not paid rent from 1.8.2010 and, hence, total arrears amount of rent amount of Rs.13,500/- was due towards the tenant. Plaintiff was desirous of opening jewelry shop for his major son Abhishek in the suitaccommodation and for this purpose, plaintiff is having sufficient money and his son Abhishek is having experience of conducting shop. Hence, plaintiff is bona fidely required suit accommodation (shop) for starting business of his major son and he is not having any alternative suitable accommodation of his son in town concerned. Plaintiff orally intimated to the tenant that his tenancy is being terminated from 1.6.2012 and asked for delivering of vacant possession of suit-accommodation, but defendant/tenant did not pay the arrears of rent and also not delivered the possession of the suitaccommodation. The suit for above mentioned reliefs was filed before the trial Court.

4. The defendant/tenant had opposed the prayer by filing a written statement. It was pleaded by the tenant that plaintiff is not having any bona fide need of suit accommodation to start the shop for his major son in suit-accommodation. Defendant was regularly paying rent but the plaintiff to make a ground for eviction stopped taking rent. Thereafter, defendant's son sent rent through money-orders, which returned back as plaintiff refused to received it. The plaintiff has not terminated the tenancy by legal notice, hence, suit was not maintainable. In the house purchased by the plaintiff, in which suit accommodation is situated, an another shop having two doors (Dar) is situated in which plaintiff is running his shop of shoes from a door (Dar) and from another door (Dar) plaintiff's son Abhishek is conducting jewelry shop. Plaintiff's major son Abhishek is not an unemployed person and plaintiff has also purchased another shop and had given that shop to another tenant. Plaintiff is not having any actual or bona fide necessity for suit accommodation. Thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed.

5. The trial Court framed the issues and after taking evidence of both the parties and hearing recorded its findings that plaintiff is not having bonafide need of suit accommodation, as it was proved that plaintiff's son Abhishek is not unemployed and he is already conducting a jewelry shop in the same house, in which suit accommodation is situated and plaintiff has not sent any written notice regarding demand of arrears of rent before filing of the suit, thus, ground envisaged under section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act was not available to the plaintiff. Consequently, trial Court has dismissed the suit.

6. Plaintiff filed first appeal before the lower appellate Court, which was allowed and his suit for eviction was decreed by lower appellate Court only on the ground envisaged under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act hold