R. K. VIJAYVARGIYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-1-1982 passed by the Xth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, in civil appeal No. 165-A of 1981 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1981 passed by the Xth Civil Judge Class II, Indore, in civil suit No. 324-A of 1980. ( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : The plaintiff-appellant filed the present suit against the defendant-respondent for eviction from the tenanted non-residential accommodation and for the recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The ground for eviction was that the plaintiff required the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of his major son Mohammad Iqbal and the plaintiff has no other suitable accommodation of his own available to him for that purpose in the city of Indore. ( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff's requirement was proved. On appeal by the defendant the appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. ( 4 ) THIS appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law : "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellate court committed an error of law in dismissing the suit for eviction on the ground that the plaintiff has an alternative accommodation available to him for starting his business?" ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contended that the finding recorded by the appellate court that the plaintiff had in his possession alternative accommodation for starting the business of his son Mohd. Iqbal is vitiated because it is based on irrelevant consideration. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appellate court has held that it was not proved that the plaintiff required the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of his son Mohd. Iqbal and that as no question of law has been framed in regard to the said fact it cannot be agitated in this appeal. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appellate court has held that it was not proved that the plaintiff required the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of his son Mohd. Iqbal and that as no question of law has been framed in regard to the said fact it cannot be agitated in this appeal. He further contended that the finding recorded by the appellate court on the question of requirement of the plaintiff of the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of his son Mohd. Iqbal and the availability of alternative accommodation for that purpose is a finding on a question of fact and this court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the said finding recorded by the appellate court. ( 7 ) THE defendant also submitted an application (I. M. A. No. 5201 of 1984) for amendment in the written statement based on subsequent event and other applications clarifying the facts stated in the said application. These applications shall be dealt with presently. ( 8 ) THE plaintiffs son Mohd. Iqbal (P. W. 4) passed his I. T. I. examination and is not otherwise employed. The plaintiff deposed that he required the tenanted accommodation which is situate on the Nandlalpura main road for starting the lathe machine business of Mohd. Iqbal and he has no other suitable accommodation of his own available to him for that purpose in the city of Indore. Mohd. Iqbal (P. W. 4) also testified that he required the tenanted accommodation for starting his lathe machine business. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the defendant Mohd. Iqbal along with his brothers owns a few shops in house No. 65 Kabutarkhana, Indore and a vacant shop was available in that house which was let out to Surjitsingh by rent note Ex. D-1. It was also pointed out that one shop was vacated by Lukman and that was also available for starting the business of Mohd. Iqbal. ( 10 ) THE plaintiff stated that he requires the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of Mohd. Iqbal because it is situate on the main road and the shops in house No. 65 Kabutarkhana are situate on a side street and Mohd. Iqbal cannot start his business in those shops. Iqbal. ( 10 ) THE plaintiff stated that he requires the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of Mohd. Iqbal because it is situate on the main road and the shops in house No. 65 Kabutarkhana are situate on a side street and Mohd. Iqbal cannot start his business in those shops. ( 11 ) THE plaintiff in his statement also offered to the defendant that he may shift to the shop vacated by Lukman and that he would charge him rent less than what he was paying for the tenanted accommodation. The defendant in his statement refused to accept the said offer of the plaintiff. ( 12 ) NOW it has emerged in evidence that the house No. 65 Kabutarkhana is situate on a side street and the tenanted accommodation is situate on a main road. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that the house in Kabutarkhana is also situate on a road which is 28' in width. However the width of the road is not decisive of the fact whether the accommodation situate on that road is equally suitable as compared to the tenanted accommodation situate on the main road. If the plaintiff's son wants to start a new business he would naturally like to start it at a prominent place and not at a place situate on a side street. If the plaintiff wants to start the business of his son in the tenanted accommodation in preference to the accommodation situate at Kabutarkhana on the ground that the tenanted accommodation which is situate on the main road is more suitable for starting the business of jon, the plaintiffs option cannot be held to be unreasonable. ( 13 ) THE defendant is carrying on a flour mill in the tenanted accommodation. He rejected the offer made by the plaintiff to shift his business in the Kabutarkhana shop obviously for the reasons that that shop is situate on a side street. The defendant has not given any reason why he has not accepted the offer given by the plaintiff. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent laid stress on the testimony of Murlidhar (D. W. 1) and contended that the lathe machine business can be carried on at any place. This contention has also no merit. The defendant has not given any reason why he has not accepted the offer given by the plaintiff. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent laid stress on the testimony of Murlidhar (D. W. 1) and contended that the lathe machine business can be carried on at any place. This contention has also no merit. Murlidhar deposed that the lathe machine business is being carried on in certain localities named by him and further stated that it can be carried on at any place meaning thereby at any locality. However, whether one particular place as compared to another place is more suitable for starting the lathe machine business has not been stated by Murlidhar. ( 15 ) KABUTARKHANA shop is situate at a distance of 200 yards from the tenanted accommodation. The defendant's witnesses Laxmikant and Nandkishore also admitted that the tenanted accommodation is situate on a main road and the Kabutarkhana shop is situate on a side street. ( 16 ) THUS, on the evidence on record it is quite clear that the tenanted accommodation is situate on a main road and it is more suitable for starting the business of the plaintiffs son Mohd. Iqbal as compared to the shops situate at Kabutarkhana. In the circumstances, the plaintiff's requirement of the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of his son Mohd. Iqbal cannot be negatived on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation in the house situate at Kabutarkhana. ( 17 ) THE appellate court committed a patent error of law in reversing the finding recorded by the trial court that the plaintiff required the tenanted accommodation for starting the lathe machine business of his son Mohd. Iqbal and he has no other suitable accommodation of his own available to him for that purpose in the city of Indore, and the finding recorded by the appellate court is vitiated being based on irrelevant considerations. ( 18 ) THE appellate court has not reversed the finding recorded by the trial court as regards the objective facts that the plaintiff's son Mohd. Iqbal has passed his I. T. I. examination and was not otherwise employed and that he requires an accommodation for starting his lathe machine business. The appellate court drew an erroneous inference from the fact that the defendant gave notice to the plaintiff for reduction of the rent and thereafter the plaintiff initiated eviction proceedings. Iqbal has passed his I. T. I. examination and was not otherwise employed and that he requires an accommodation for starting his lathe machine business. The appellate court drew an erroneous inference from the fact that the defendant gave notice to the plaintiff for reduction of the rent and thereafter the plaintiff initiated eviction proceedings. The objective fact as stated above having not been negatived by the appellate court the inference drawn by it is not justified. ( 19 ) AS the appellate court has reversed the decree for eviction passed by the trial court mainly on the ground that the plaintiff has an alternative accommodation available to him for starting the business of his son Mohd. Iqbal and has not reversed the finding recorded by the trial court regarding the objective facts as stated above, it was not necessary to frame a question regarding the illegality of the finding of the appellate court about the requirement of the plaintiff of the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of his son Mohd. Iqbal. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent in that regard is not tenable. ( 20 ) THUS, as stated above the finding recorded by the appellate court that the plaintiff has an alternative accommodation available to him for starting the business of his son Mohd. Iqbal is vitiated and therefore the decree passed by the appellate court dismissing the plaintiffs claim for eviction deserves to be set aside. ( 21 ) IN this appeal the defendant submitted an application (LA. No. 5201 of 84) for amendment in the written statement. The amendment proposed by the defendant is to the effect that one shop in house No. 65 Kabutarkhana which was in occupation of Sardar Printing Press became vacant and the plaintiff has relet it to one Laxminarain and that the plaintiff has constructed two more shops in that house which are available to the plaintiff for starting the business of his son Mohd. Iqbal. ( 22 ) THIS application is opposed by the plaintiff. He denied that Sardar Printing Press vacated any shop and he relet it to Laxminarayan. . Pritamsingh owner of Sardar printing Press filed an affidavit denying that he has vacated any shop. Laxminarayan has also filed an affidavit stating that he was a tenant in the shop for a number of years. He denied that Sardar Printing Press vacated any shop and he relet it to Laxminarayan. . Pritamsingh owner of Sardar printing Press filed an affidavit denying that he has vacated any shop. Laxminarayan has also filed an affidavit stating that he was a tenant in the shop for a number of years. As regards the construction of two shops the plaintiff has stated that two living rooms, latrine and bath room are being constructed in house No. 65 Kabutarkhana and they are also in-complete. He has also filed the sanctioned plan of the new construction. All this apart, as stated above, the plaintiff's case is that the shops in house No. 65 Kabutarkhana are not suitable for the business of the plaintiff's son Mohd. Iqbal because they are situate on a side street. ( 23 ) IN the circumstances even if any shop has become available to the plaintiff in house No. 65 Kabutarkhana that subsequent event can have no effect on the requirement of the plaintiff of the tenanted accommodation. The application (LA. No. 5201 of 1984) for amendment in the written statement based on subsequent event and other application submitted by the defendant in that regard are therefore dismissed. ( 24 ) AS a result of the discussion aforesaid this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the appellate court are set aside and those of the trial court are restored. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed. .