- (1.)THIS second appeal has been preferred against decree for eviction granted in favour of plaintiff/respondent against defendant/appellant on grounds under section 12(l)(a), (e) and (i) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.)SHORT facts, relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, with allegations that he owns House No. 1078/8 situated in Municipal Ward No. 8, Hammal Mohalla, Shivpuri. Suit premises comprised in two rooms and one varanda on first floor is occupied by defendant/appellant as tenant at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month for residential purpose. Defendant is in arrears of rent with effect from 1-4-1982, which has not been paid, despite refusal of regi tered demand notice on 20-2-2003. Suit premises is required bona fide by the plaintiff for residence of his son Dinesh and grandson Navin son of Shyam Sunder. He has no alternative vacant accommodation of his own to accommodate the aforesaid family members for fulfilling need. This apart, defendant has acquired a house near private bus stand in Shivpuri for his residence and has shifted there for residence with his family members. Defendant/appellant submitted his written statement stating therein that the suit house belongs to the plaintiff as well as his brother Badri Prasad. Rent was paid up to 24-1-2003. It was denied that the defendant has acquired any other accommodation for his residence and has shifted there. Alleged residential need for Dinesh and grandson Navin was also denied. It was stated in specific that plaintiff has various other suitable vacant accommodations for alleged residential purpose.
After recording the evidence, learned trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11-4-2005 granted decree for eviction merely, on ground under section 12(1)(a) of the Act.

Aggrieved by it, defendant preferred Civil Appeal No. 37-A/2005. Plaintiff also submitted cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying thereby decree for eviction also on grounds under section 12(l)(e) and (i) of the Act. Learned lower appellate Judge vide his impugned judgment and decree dated 22-12-2005 dismissed the appeal preferred by defendant and further accepted the cross-objections on grounds under section 12(1)(e) and (i) of the Act. Accordingly, decree for eviction has been granted on grounds under section 12(1)(a), (e) and (i) of the Act.

(3.)AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid, defendant preferred the present second appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
"(1) Whether both the Courts below have committed an error of law with regard to granting the decree under section 12(l)(a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act with regard to arrears of rent? (2) Whether the first appellate Court was right in granting a decree for bona fide need of landlord in view of section 12(1)(e) of the Act? (3) Whether the first Appellate Court was right in reversing the findings of the fact of the trial Court and granting decree in view of section 12(l)(i) of the Act?"

Plaintiff-respondent, in the present appeal, submitted an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (I.A. No. 7113/2007) with certified copy of municipal entry in respect of house situated near Middle School boundary in Ward No. 26, Shivpuri, which is recorded in the name of appellant's wife, namely, Smt. Vimla Devi as owner of the house. Appellant's learned counsel during the course of arguments submitted a photocopy of registered sale-deed dated 9-8-1984 in rebuttal of the document submitted by respondent under Order 41, Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code, which has not been opposed by the respondent's learned counsel. It reveals that the house alleged to have been acquired by the defendant was owned by his wife which was sold by her vide the said registered sale-deed.