Short Note : 1. This appeal was filed by the appellant-plaintiffs against the judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Neemuch who allowed the appeal filed by respondent tenants and dismissed the suit for eviction decreed by the Court of Civil Judge Class I, Neemuch. 2. It is alleged that the shop in dispute Was taken by the respondent Ramkumar on rent. The rent deed was executed un 23rd June 1965 and it was agreed that the tenancy will commence from 1st July 1965 at the rate of Rs. 35/- p.m. Balkishan respondent No.2 executed a Jamanatnama for the same. The plaintiff-appellants filed the suit for eviction alleging that plaintiff Sitaram's son Chandmal (plaintiff No.2) is doing the business of selling silver ornaments in his shop in village Sanjeet ; but since a year before the filing of the suit on account of heavy rains this village got submerged into Gandhi Sagar and his business had come to a standstill. Chandmal therefore wants to start his business of selling gold and silver ornaments at Neemuch in the shop in dispute. It was also alleged that the plaintiff is not in possession of any other shop of his own in the town of Neemuch available for the said business. The defendant tenant contested the claim. It was also alleged that there is a portion of this house lying vacant where this business could be started. The trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff appellants and decreed the suit. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge held that the bona fide requirement of the suit premises is not established and hence the present second appeal. 3. Held: What is required to be established by the plaintiff in a suit under section 12 (1) (f) of the Act is that he wants the suit premises for starting his business. What is further required is that he has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. The alternative accommodation suggested was a passage to the bathroom which the learned lower appellate Court has found as a fact that it could not be said to be an alternative accommodation which can be used for the purposes of a shop Apparently therefore there is no alternative suitable non-residential accommodation in possession of the appellant landlord in the town. 4. 4. As regards the requirement of the plaintiffs the learned lower appellate Court set aside the conclusion of the trial Court on the ground that the place where this shop is situated is not the normal place of business where gold and silver ornaments are sold. Bu t as the plaintiff in his statement stated that this shop is, situated opposite to the ‘Haat-maidan’ and therefore the customers from rural areas could be attracted to this place, the learned Judge felt that if the plaintiff wants to entertain customers 'from the rural area then he should do so in his village Shop itself Such a reasoning is not Justified. The plaintiff is the hest judge where he should carryon his business and it could not be said that this place is not suitable for his business. 5. Another ground on the bass of which the learned Judge interfered with the decision of the trial Court is that there is yet another shop in the same house admittedly in possession of a tenant against whom also a suit for eviction has been filed and the plaintiff Sitaram according to the learned Judge admitted in cross examination that this shop he wanted to get vacated for starting the business of his another son. The learned Judge therefore felt that this portion is not available for Chandmal was not alleged in the plaint. But it appears that the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court forgot that what is necessary to allege is that there is no other suitable non-residential accommodation in possession of the plaintiff in the town. If it is in possession of a tenant and a suit for eviction is filed it could not be said that it is in possession of the plaintiff and therefore on this ground also the decree passed by the trial Court could not be interfered with. 6. Apparently, the learned lower appellate Court committed an error of law in interfering with the decision of the trial Court on considerations which do not fall within the ambit of section 12 (1) of the Act. Appeal allowed. Tenant given three month's time to vacate tile shop.