JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) NONE for the defendant-appellant. ( 2. ) SHRI N. K. Modi, counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs. ( 3. ) IN absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, I have gone through the record, studied the evidence and pleadings and also the documents so that injustice may not be caused to the appellant for the default of his counsel. ( 4. ) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS Ramesh Chand and Suresh Chand purchased a house bearing No. 17/549, situate in Sinde-ki-Chhawani, Gwalior on 19-5-1977. When he purchased the premises, the defendant-appellant was in possession as a tenant and paying rent of Rs. 5 per month. ( 5. ) THE plaintiff-respondents, who became the landlords, filed the suit on 9-1-1978, on the grounds mentioned in section 12 (1) (h) of the m. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). " (h) that the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or alterations cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated;" ( 6. ) BOTH the parties led evidence on the issues framed and their suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant-appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, that too was dismissed. So the defendant-appellant has come to this Court and filed this Second Civil Appeal. ( 7. ) AT the time of admission of this appeal substantial questions of law were framed, which I will consider ad ceriatim. Substantial question, (a) Whether the impugned decree under section 12 (1) (h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is vitiated for the reasons that the necessary averments to bring the case within the scope of section 12 (1) (h) read with section 12 (7) of the said Act are missing in the plaint and (b) that the Courts below have failed to record the finding about their satisfaction that the proposed reconstruction will not radically alter the purpose for which the accommodation was let or that the radical alteration are in the public interest? ( 8. ( 8. ) THAT the necessary averment to bring the ease within the scope of section 12 (i) (h) read with section 12 (7) of the said Act are missing in the plaint or not, I have examined the plaint and in para 4 of the plaint, i find that necessary averments were stated. Subsequent to the filing of the written statement, this para was further amended by the plaintiff-respondents. Thus, this part of the substantial question of law is answered that the necessary averments to bring the case within the scope of section 12 (1) (h) read with section 12 (7) of the said Act are not missing in the plaint. ( 9. ) AS to the second part of the substantial question of law that as to whether the Courts below have failed to record a finding about their satisfaction. . . "i have gone through both the judgments and the concurrent findings of fact indicate that both the Courts below have given their finding on the point. ( 10. ) LET us now examine, whether the provisions of section 12 (7) of the Act have been proved by the plaintiff-respondents in the trial Court or not? Section 12 (7) of the Act read thus: "12 (7 ). No order for eviction of a tenant shall be made on the ground specified in clause (h) of sub-section (1), unless the Court is satisfied that the proposed reconstruction will not radically alter the purpose for which the accommodation was let or that radical alteration is in the public interest, and that the plaint and estimates of such reconstruction have been properly prepared and that necessary funds for the purpose are available with the landlord. " ( 11. ) UNDER section 12 (7) of the Act, four requirements must be proved by the plaintiff-respondents before he could succeed : (1) that he is not intending to carry out radical alterations in the premises; (2) If radical alterations are to be carried out, then it should be in the public interest; (3) estimates, permissions by the municipal authorities have been given or not and; (4) that the plaintiff has got sufficient funds in his possession to carry out the construction. ( 12. ( 12. ) IN my opinion, the provisions of section 12 (7) of the Act are not required to be pleaded, but it is the satisfaction of the trial Court, which is essential on these points. Sale-deed with map (Ex. P-2) shows that the premises purchased by the plaintiffs were for residential purposes. Thus, the radical alterations were not to be carried out by the plaintiffs, because, according to the map attached to sale-deed (Ex. P-2) it shaws that the house was for residential purposes. Ex. P-10 is the document, by which the municipal corporation Gwalior has given the permission for construction. Ex. P 12 is the construction-plan proved by the corporation. Ex. P-13 is the estimate of expenses and Ex. P-14, Ex. P-15, Ex. P-16 and Ex. P-17 are the documents showing and proving that the plaintiffs have got sufficient funds for carrying out the proposed alterations in the residential premises. Thus, the substantial questions framed in this appeal under bearing (a) and (b) deserve to be answered and are answered as below. ( 13. ) THAT there are necessary averments in the plaint to bring the case within the scope of section 12 (1) (h) of the Act and the evidence shows that the requirements of section 12 (7) of the Act have been proved by the plaintiffs in the trial Court. As there is no substance in the appeal, it is dismissed with costs throughout. Appeal dismissed.