ORDER

The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants, aggrieved by the order passed by the First Appellate Court by which the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 12.04.2019

was set-aside.

2.

learned trial Court. The Respondents filed a suit for eviction under section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) (for arrears of rent and bonafide requirement). The learned trial Court dismissed the civil suit in its entirety. The Respondents preferred a first appeal in which the impugned order was passed. The impugned order upholds the order passed by the learned trial Court to the extent that it also did not accede to the prayers of the Respondents herein for a decree under section 12(1)(a) of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961. However, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and passed a decree of eviction on the grounds of reasonable cause having been made out under section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961"). The Respondents herein have not preferred an appeal against the impugned order for the rejection of their appeal viz-a-viz section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961.

3.

Appellate Court erred in not following the law relating to section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961. According to the learned counsel for the Appellants, there has to be a specific pleading by the Respondents to the affect (a) that the existing premise was not adequate enough for the conduct of his business and, (b) that no other premises were available to him for the conduct of his business.

4.

the learned trial Court's order, where the learned trial Court held that PW-2 (Balmukund Agrawal) who was the brother of the plaintiff no.2 and the son of plaintiff no.1 has stated in his evidence that his business was flourishing. It further held that the said witness has not stated or proved that he wants to expand his business and neither has he produced evidence to show that there was a probability of the articles kept in shop getting spoiled or stolen. Learned counsel for the Appellants has also referred to paragraph-20 of Balmukund Agrawal's statement where he has said so categorically that his business is flourishing from the present premises.

5.

judgment of passed by the co-ordinate Bench reported in 2009(1) MPLJ 313 in the case of Namamlal Vs. Prakash Chand Jain, where this Court has held that there must be specific averment in the plaint and evidence led to prove that the landlord had no other reasonable suitable non-residential accommodation in the city.

6.

1961 was an Act which was legislated for the protection of the rights of the tenant and that it is a beneficial legislation, and its interpretation and application must be in favour of the tenant.

7.

the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is correct and flawless. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has appreciated the evidence in the case and pleadings in the correct perspective and thereafter passed the impugned order. In the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the Appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph-20 of the statement of DW-1, who is the appellant herein. Having read the same, it appears that the Appellants herein itself has admitted that the brother of the plaintiff no.2 Balmukund Agrawal, for whom the suit property was sought for under bonafide requirement, is running his business from a shop that had space constrains and that he could do better if he started operating from the suit property which is adjoining. The same is an admission on the part of the Appellants about the hardship that is being faced by the brother of the plaintiff no.2. Learned counsel for the Respondents has also placed before this Shiv Swarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chandra Gupta reported in SCC 222, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the Court is satisfied of the bonafide requirement of the landlord by applying objective standards, then the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the l