- (1.)Being aggrieved by judgment dated 2.4.2009 passed by V. Addl. District Judge, Khargone, West Nimar in Civil Appeal N0.6-A/ 2009, whereby judgment dated 10.2.2006 passed by Addl. Civil Judge Class II, Khargone, West Nimar in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2005, whereby suit filed by the Respondents against the Appellant for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Act (which shall be referred to as the Act) was decreed on the ground under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act was maintained, present appeal has been filed.
(2.)The appeal was admitted for hearing by this Court on 19.7.2010 on the following substantial questions of law:
1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Courts below committed error in decreeing the suit against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act ?

2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Courts below committed error in holding that being a tenant Appellant is no one to object the partition which has taken place between Respondent and his brother ?

(3.)Short facts of the case are that Respondent filed a suit for eviction on 1.9.2001 alleging that Respondents are real brother and sons of Kanhaiyalal. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the shop situated at M.G. Road, Khargone having width of 6 feet and length of 22 feet. It was alleged that eight months before filing of the suit partition has taken place between the Respondent No. 1 and his brothers and as per the partition suit shop has come into the share of Respondent No. 1 in which Appellant is in occupation as tenant @ Rs. 30/- per month w.e.f. 1.5.70 from the father of Respondent No. 1. It was alleged that Appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2000, which was not paid inspite of notice of demand. It was alleged that after death of father of Respondent No. 1 suit was filed by Respondent No. 1 alongwith other Respondents, which was numbered as Civil Suit No. 118-A/80 and was pending in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Khargone and was dismissed against which appeals were filed and Second Appeal was numbered as S.A. No. 405/85 and was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.2.86. It was alleged that in the said proceedings the Appellant was held as tenant of Respondents. It was alleged that at the time of filing of the earlier suit Respondent and his brothers, who are Respondents herein were living jointly but eight months before filing of the suit partition has taken place. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 requires suit accommodation bonafidely for carrying on business of sweet shop. It was alleged that for this purpose Respondent No. 1 is having no alternative suitable accommodation. It is prayed that decree of eviction be passed against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act. The suit was contested by the Appellant by filing the written statement, wherein all the plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that any partition has taken place between the parties and Respondent No. 1 was the sole owner of the property. It was alleged that after the death of Kanhiyalal all the Respondents are the owners of the suit property, who are living jointly. It was denied that Appellant was in default of payment of rent. It was also denied that Respondent No. 1 requires the suit accommodation for carrying on the business. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 is in occupation of one more shop having the same area adjoining to the suit shop, which is in occupation of Respondent No. 1. It was alleged that there is one more shop towards the western side of the suit shop, which belongs to the joint family of Respondent No. 1 from where Respondent No. 1 is carrying on the business. It was also alleged that Respondent No. 1 is having one shop at Pragati Complex. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. The written statement was also filed by the Respondents No. 2 to 5, wherein plaint allegations were not disputed. It was also not disputed that in the partition between the Respondents the suit accommodation has come into the share of Respondent No. 1. On the basis of pleadings of the parties trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and decreed the suit under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, which was maintained by dismissing the appeal, hence this appeal.