Short Note : Shri Swami Saran, learned counsel for the appellant, contends, that although the suit accommodation is residential in character yet it can be got vacated on the alleged requirement both for office and residence. Reliance is placed on the Proviso to section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Reliance is also placed on the ratio of the Supreme Court case reported in 1977 JLJ 705 (Panjumal Daulatram (Firm) v. Sakhi Gopal). Held : After having heard the learned counsel on the question of admission none of the aforesaid contentions appear to have any force. 2. Admittedly the suit accommodation having been let out for residential purposes, therefore, its eviction can be claimed only on ground falling under section 12(1)(e) of the Act. So far as the Proviso enacted to Clause (c) of section 12(1) is concerned, its applicability cannot be extended to cases falling under section 12(1)(e) of the Act. The applicability of the aforesaid Proviso is confined to those types of cases where the ground on which eviction is sought falls under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Where the landlord filed a suit on the allegation that the tenant or any person residing with him has created a nuisance and has done an act which is inconsistent for the purpose he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation or which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interests of the landlord therein, the tenant can save himself from ejectment if he shows that the act complained of is use by him of a portion of the accommodation as his office. Accordingly, the protection carved out by the aforesaid Proviso cannot be claimed in a case where the plaintiff seeks ejectment on ground other than Clause (c) of section 12(1) the Act. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff has been rightly non-suited because the ground on which he seeks ejectment is of requirement not only for residential purpose but for non-residential purpose also Requirement for ‘officer’ cannot be regarded as one falling within the ambit of 'residential' purpose. 3. Reliance on the ratio of the Supreme Court case reported in 1977 JLJ 705 (Panjumal Daulatram Firm v. Sakhi Gopal) is also not available to the plaintiff applicant in this case. 3. Reliance on the ratio of the Supreme Court case reported in 1977 JLJ 705 (Panjumal Daulatram Firm v. Sakhi Gopal) is also not available to the plaintiff applicant in this case. In the case of Panjumal Daulatram (Supra) which was before their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the premises were admittedly let out for dual purposes, the ground floor for residential purpose and the first floor for non-residential purpose. Where the suit accommodation is let out for composite purpose, residential as well as non-residential purposes the ratio of the aforesaid Supreme Court case can operate but the ratio of the Supreme Court relied on by Mr. Swami Saran in the present case cannot be helpful to the plaintiff in view of the fact that the suit accommodation in the present case in its entirety was let out for residential purposes. 4. In view of the fact that the suit accommodation in the present case was not let out for composite purposes but was let out only for residential purposes, the principle of Pajumal Daulatram's case (supra) cannot govern the case. Appeal dismissed.