JUDGMENT V.D. Gyani, J. -- 1. This defendant tenant's second appeal u/s 100 C.P.C. against eviction decree as passed by the trial Court, and confirmed by lower Appellate Court, on the ground of bonafide requirement as specified in Sec. 12 (1) (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') 2. The findings on the point of bonafide requirement being concurrent, I am fuly conscious of the extremely limited scope of interference in such appeals. 3. This appeal stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "Whether in view of the amendment pleaded by the defendants the bonafide requirement of the suit premises subsisted on the date of passing of the decree? Whether in view of the evidence on record the bonafide requirement is duly proved?" Although learned counsel for the appellant assailing plaintiff's bonafide need referred to the earlier suit filed on similar ground which was ultimately compromised with enhanced rent, whether it was a case of setting up a new business or continuing with one already started, plaintiff's design to demolish the house and construct a shopping complex as evident from sanction-correspondence with Municipal Corporation authorities and the authorities of the Town and Country Planning Department. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents explaining the circumstances, leading to the compromise decree in the earlier suit, submitted that it had no bearing on the present suit. The time gap between the two suits is also important. Referring to Ex. P. 6 it was argued that the plaintiff was not setting up any new business. 5. To my mind it is not necessary to go into the above points, raised by the appellant, in view of the extremely narrow scope of Sec. 100 C.P.C. Now, therefore, confining strictly to the question which the appeal stands admitted, the sustainability of the decree as passed is to be examined. 6. The defendant appellant came out with application for amendment stating that plaintiff's need of the suit accommodation had come to an end on his accepting a service in a local co-operative stores. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the undue long time, consumed in such cases a plaintiff who want to set up business cannot wait for almost years and years together and had to take up some job, as a stop gap arrangement. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the undue long time, consumed in such cases a plaintiff who want to set up business cannot wait for almost years and years together and had to take up some job, as a stop gap arrangement. True there is nothing uncommon, but as is evident from trial Court's order sheet, dtd. 12.1.84 there is an unqualified admission of the fact, that plaintiff whose need was pleaded and projected, had joined service. There is no explanation nor any reservation of statement. The explanation now offered by the learned counsel before this Court should have been placed on record before the trial Court. 7. Placing reliance on Hasmat Rai's case (1981 JLJ 716 = AIR 1981 SC 1711 ) counsel for the appellant contended that in face of the admitted position, no decree for eviction could validly be passed by the Courts below: 8. The trial Courts order sheet is reproduced for ready reference: "Plaintiff by Shri Sisodiya advocate defendant by Shri Garg Advocate. Shri Garg has moved an application under O. 6 R. 17 CPC for amending his W.S. According to defendants plaintiff has started service and hence his need has come to an end. Counsel for plaintiff Shri Sisodiya has stated that he had no objection to the amendment application and has also made a statement at the bar that he submits that plaintiff has joined service during the pendency of the suit. Application allowed." It may be noted that at no point of time the above admission has either been explained or withdrawn by the plaintiff. It stands and so long as it stands, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has proved his bona fide requirement business premises (non-residential accommodation). How incongruent and incompatible it sounds that a person who wants to set up or continue his any business, joins service. Whatever be the reason, the explanation should come from the plaintiff at the proper stage. The amendment sought was before the trial Court the explanation is offered before this Court, in second appeal. The amendment, as proposed by the defendant appellant has been admitted by the plaintiff without any reservation of qualification. It was open to the plaintiff respondent, to have explained the circumstances which led him to, join service during pendency of the suit, the nature of service. The amendment, as proposed by the defendant appellant has been admitted by the plaintiff without any reservation of qualification. It was open to the plaintiff respondent, to have explained the circumstances which led him to, join service during pendency of the suit, the nature of service. Having failed to do so in face of the unqualified admission on his part, the decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement cannot stand, it is liable to be quashed following Hashmat Rai's case (supra). It is accordingly quashed. 9. This appeal succeeds. The judgment and decree of the Courts below set aside. Appeal allowed with costs. Counsel's fee as per Schedule, if certified.