JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal has been filed under section 100 of CPC against the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.1.2012 passed by Additional Judge to Second Additional District Judge Basoda (Fast Track Court), District Vidisha, in First Appeal No.61A/2011, confirming and modifying the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2010 passed by Civil Judge Class-1, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 7A/2010.

2. This second appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 21.10.2013 on the following substantial questions of law :-

“1. Whether, both the Courts below have committed an illegality having not granted the decree under section 12(1) (e) of the Accommodation Control Act while recording the finding which suffers from perversity of approach ?

2. Whether, the lower appellate Court has committed an illegality while setting aside the judgment and decree under ection 12 (1)(a) despite recording a positive finding with respect to nonentitlement of the defendant to get benefit under Section 12(3) of the Act ?”

3. The facts of the case in brief are that deceased plaintiff-Kasturchand Jain instituted a civil suit under section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(e) of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity, the 'Act') before the trial Court against the defendant-tenant Laxmi Narayan Sharma. At first floor of disputed house, defendant was given two rooms at the rent of Rs.550/- per month excluding electricity bill. The plaintiff's son wanted to live separately after his marriage and the plaintiff was having no other alternate suitable accommodation for that purpose, therefore the plaintiff required the disputed house. It is further pleaded that till September 2007 the defendant had paid the rent and electricity bills are due to him. The trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of section 12(1)(a) of the Act but dismissed the suit under section 12(1)(e) of the Act. In first appeal, the lower appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the finding of the trial Court on the ground under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act but set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court under section 12(1) (a) of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has submitted that both the courts below have committed an error of facts and law in not decreeing the suit on the ground of bonafide need. In the plaint, it was duly pleaded that except tenanted premises there was no other suitable and alternate accommodation for separate residence of the plaintiff's son along with his wife. The Court cannot dictate as to how and in what manner the plaintiff has to reside in the suit house. It is for the plaintiff to decide and chose in what portion he has to live for the convenience of his family members. Despite admission of defendant in para 17, the lower appellate Court committed an error of law in not granting decree under section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, learned counsel for the appellants prays for allowing the present second appeal.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent defendant has opposed the second appeal and submitted that no error has been committed by lower appellate court, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court and prayed to dismiss the second appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From perusal of the record of the present second appeal, it is apparent that the appellant has filed an application (IA No. 2454/2020) for bringing subsequent facts and documents on record, wherein it is mentioned that the appellants are landlord and respondent is tenant in the suit premises which is a residential accommodation. It is also mentioned in the application that recently the respondent has purchased a residential accommodation in Vidisha town which is a double-storied house, vide registered sale deed dated 30.7.2020 (Annexure 'A') and after execution of the aforesaid sale deed the respondent along with his family members has shifted his residence to the newly purchased house and the