Short Note : 1. By this second appeal the tenant-defendants seek interference with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. The decree for eviction has been passed on the ground of genuine need of the suit accommodation for the purposes of business of the son of the plaintiff as contemplated by section 12 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Since the decree is based on both the grounds, it would be proper first to consider the validity of the finding regarding the ground of need. 2. Held : The only question of law which has been disclosed in the memo of appeal in respect of this ground is that there was variance in between the pleadings and proof on the question of genuine need of the suit accommodation. The argument was that in the plaint the plaintiff has come with a case that she needed the suit accommodation for the business of her son and also of her husband. It is true that the need of the suit accommodation for the husband was not relevant under the provisions of the Act, but since the need of the son was already pleaded it cannot be said that there was variance in the pleadings and proof. If the need of the plaintiff pleaded on two counts could be established for one, the same was permissible according to law. Therefore, the judgment and decree impunged cannot be challenged on the ground of variance in the pleading and proof. Appeal dismissed.