1. After getting un success in both the Courts below the appellant/defendant preferred this appeal under section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31 .3.1997 passed by First Additional Judge Hoshangabad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 7-A/96 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.2.1996 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class II, Hoshangabad in Civil Original Suit No. 49-A/91, regarding eviction under section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

2. The facts giving rise to this appear are that a suit for eviction on the available ground under section 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (c), 12 (1) (f) and 12 (1) (h) of the Act as filed by the predecessor of respondents against the predecessor of appellant. According to plaint allegation the eviction was prayed for bona fide genuine non-residential need of the wife and daughter of the deceased plaintiff, now respondents No.1, 4 and 5. It was further pleaded that the house being in dilapidated condition requires for major alteration which could not be carried out without vacating the premises.

3. In the written statement of appellant the aforesaid grounds for eviction have been denied. In addition to it, it was pleaded that respondent had a sufficient alternate accommodation regarding their alleged need and the condition of the house as said by the respondents is also denied and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. In view of the aforesaid pleadings as many as 10 issues were framed and evidence was recorded by the trial Court. On appreciation of evidence the bona fide genuine requirement and for repairing of the house as said above were found to be proved and suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. On appeal the decree was partly set aside on the ground under section 12 (1) (h) but by affirming the decree under section 12 (1) (f) the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this second appeal was preferred and the same was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

(1) Whether the respondents were entitled to file a suit for seeking benefit under section 12 (1) (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and also on the ground of section 12 (1) (h) of the aforesaid Act, for reconstruction of the suit premises?

(2) Whether in view of the pleadings of the respondents, the respondents could get a decree under section 12 (1) (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?

5. Shri Virendra Verma learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the ground under section 12 (1) (f) and 12 (1) (h) are based on different footing, one is for non-residential need while the another is for building, rebuilding or alteration of premises and, therefore, both the grounds could not be taken simultaneously in one suit and decreed the same by the Court. According to him suit was not filed in accordance with law and procedure.

6. So far on another question of law is concerned he has submitted that in view of the pleadings and evidence on record the respondent had a sufficient alternate accommodation to satisfy their alleged need but the same have not been considered by the Courts below in passing the decree under section 12 (1) (f) of the Act. According to him, the evidence was not appreciated as per settled principles of law and he prayed for re-appreciation of the evidence with a prayer for setting aside the judgment and decree impugned by allowing this appeal.

7. While on the other hand Shri Chandrahas Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that suit for eviction can be filed on both the grounds simultaneously, he cited a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in support of his contention.

8. On other question of law he has submitted that the finding in respect of genuine requirement being finding of fact cannot be interfered at the stage of second appeal, he has also placed his reliance on the decision of the apex Court and submitted that as such th