Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-appellant's case in the trial Court was that the respondent-tenant was occupying a portion of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 and that the respondent- tenant has executed a rent-note on 1-10-62. It was alleged that the respondent-tenant did not pay the rent in time. It was also alleged that he had unlawfully occupied a portion in the suit premises. It was also contended that the plaintiff-appellant needed the premises for the residence of his family as a number of school going children are growing and they have no other place to study. The learned trial Court decreed the suit : but in appeal the only ground considered was of genuine requirement and the learned Court below after considering the defence set up by the respondent-tenant and the evidence elicited in cross-examination and also by leading his own witnesses came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to make out a case under section 12 (1) (e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Consequently the appeal was allowed. On facts as found by the Hon'ble High Court the defence of tenant-respondent was ordered to be struck off against eviction. Held : Learned counsel for the respondent frankly conceded that in the event the defence is struck off still the appellant landlord has to make out a case under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in Krishna Bai v. Laxmi Bai ( 1970 JLJ 707 ). 2. In view of this it was contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant-landlord's own evidence and the evidence of his witnesses in examination-in chief alone has to be considered and if on the basis of this evidence a case under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act is made out, learned counsel for the respondent frankly conceded that the appellant shall be entitled to a decree for eviction under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act. But according to learned counsel the evidence of the witnesses examined by the landlord-appellant goes to show that there is some other portion two rooms, available to him now and for which he has given no explanation. But according to learned counsel the evidence of the witnesses examined by the landlord-appellant goes to show that there is some other portion two rooms, available to him now and for which he has given no explanation. Both learned counsel for the parties read through the evidence led by the plaintiff and referred to the evidence in examination-in-chief. It is, no doubt, true that in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff it appears that some portion i. e. two rooms are available to him in the same house. That portion according to the witness is a kachcha portion in a very bad condition. Apparently, the portion in which the plaintiff at present is residing and the portion in which the respondent is residing is a pucca house. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has a family of six members, four children who are being educated two boys and two girls. It is also clear from the evidence of the appellant-landlord that he is in service and was out of Dhar. But now has shifted to Dhar and bas occupied these three rooms in his possession which are absolutely insufficient for their residence. This evidence to which reference has been made by learned counsel for both the parties clearly goes to make out a case under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act. 1970 JLJ 707 relied on. Appeal allowed.