- (1.)TENANTS under a decree of eviction are the appellants in this second appeal.
(2.)RESPONDENTS are the legal heirs of the plaintiff/landlord-Kailash Chandra who died during this appeal.
Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of non residential premises as described in plaint on following two grounds, to wit: (i) that the appellants were in arrears of rent which amount was not paid despite service of demand notice; (ii) that the plaintiff/landlord had no reasonably suitable other accommodation for carrying on profession as an Advocate. The above grounds for eviction are covered by Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Tenants resisted the suit and in their written statements, denied all material facts as well as the grounds alleged for eviction.

(3.)THE trial court recorded a finding that the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act was not made out. On the question of personal requirement of plaintiff, the trial court held that bona fide requirement of the landlord is established. Accordingly trial Court decreed the suit and passed a decree for eviction. It may be mentioned that trial Court also granted a decree under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act though that was not pleaded as ground for eviction in the plaint.