JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Shri M. L. Agarwal for the appellant. Shri S. S. Samvatsar with Shri Rajendra Sugandhi and Miss Vandana Kasrekar for the respondents. This appeal has been admitted on following substantial questions of law :- "(1) Whether the Almirah can be said to be accommodation as defined under section 2(a) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961? (2) Whether the ground of demolition of the wall in which the almirah in question is fitted, is covered by section 12(1)(f) of the Act? 2. Both the learned counsel have been heard. Shri M. L. Agarwal argued that the almirah which in possession of the appellant is an "accommodation" in view of provisions of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) because it has been affixed to a wall which is part and parcel of a building which is owned by the respondents. Shri Samvatsar submitted that the said almirah is not an "accommodation" in view of provisions of the Act and, therefore, the appeal needs to be dismissed. 3. Section 2(a) of the Act provides the definition of term "accommodation". It has been indicated that "accommodation" means any building or part of a building, whether residential or non-residential and includes (i) any land which is not being used for agricultural purpose : (ii) garden, grounds, garages and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building or part of the building; (iii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof; (iv) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of building. In my view the term "accommodation" is a relative term and it has to be understood being circumspective to the circumstances of the matter. So far as present matter is concerned, the almirah is subject-matter of controversy in present litigation. The size of said almirah, the measurement of said almirah, its projection, the way in which it has been affixed to wall will have to be viewed. The purpose for which said almirah is being used and the way in which it is being used will also be pertinent so far as the present matter is concerned. The size of said almirah, as the record shows, is 6' in height 4' in breadth and 2' in depth. The purpose for which said almirah is being used and the way in which it is being used will also be pertinent so far as the present matter is concerned. The size of said almirah, as the record shows, is 6' in height 4' in breadth and 2' in depth. It has been affixed to a wall of a shop which is in possession of respondents and in their use. That particular almirah alone is in possession of the appellant and, as the record shows, is being used by the appellant for commercial purpose. Thus, it is not fitted, affixed to a building or part of a building which is in possession of the appellant. It is not being used for beneficial enjoyment of the building or part of building to which it is affixed which is in possession of appellant. 4. It is a matter of experience these days that some shopkeepers are required to carry on the business on footpaths by using the part of the building which is abutting to the footpaths or roads. Therefore, the question would arise whether such almirahs which are being used for commercial purpose would be "accommodation" within meaning of section 2(a) of the Act. For assuming nature of "accommodation" such almirah will have to satisfy the most important test and that of being-fitted or affixed to a building or part of a building and the test of being used for more beneficial enjoyment of that building or part of that building and for that purpose the person who is in use of that almirah will have to be also in possession of the building or part of that building to which that almirah happens to be fitted or affixed. In those circumstances only such almirah can be said to be an "accommodation" within meaning of provisions of section 2(a) of the Act. 5. For completing the further enquiry allied to this purpose, the Court will have to consider the way in which such almirah is being used. Its measurement will have to be also seen. There may be cases in which the almirah would be of a big size and of big depth which would be as good as a room. 5. For completing the further enquiry allied to this purpose, the Court will have to consider the way in which such almirah is being used. Its measurement will have to be also seen. There may be cases in which the almirah would be of a big size and of big depth which would be as good as a room. If that happens to be a case, a serious consideration will have to be given to that aspect also because now a days the persons are required to carry on business on roads and even on footpaths which are abutting to the building - which are facing such roads and footpaths. In these days of paucity of accommodation the persons are required to utilise the maximum portion of the property for their needs. The Court will have to be attentive to this aspect also. Of course, the main test would be the test which has been indicated in above mentioned paragraph. 6. As I have pointed out that the term "accommodation" is a relative term. Therefore, appropriate enquiry will have to be made as indicated in above paragraphs so far as the present matter is concerned. In the present matter the almirah which is subject matter of controversy is in possession of the appellant who is not in possession of the premises to which it has been affixed or fitted. Therefore, it will have to be held that the almirah which is subject-matter of controversy, so far as present appeal is concerned cannot be treated as an "accommodation" within meaning of provisions of section 2(a) of the Act. Therefore, I answer substantial question of law No. (1) in negative. 7. Shri M. L. Agarwal further submitted that the ground of demolition of wall in which the said almirah is fitted is not covered by provisions of section 12(1)(f) of the Act. This question will have to be answered by holding that in view of finding which has been recorded by this Court in context with substantial question of law No. (1), there is no need of answering this question at all because when the almirah in question is not held to be "accommodation" within meaning of the Act, there is no need of examining the question of demolition of the wall to which the almirah has been affixed, in view of provisions of section 12(1)(f) of the Act. Even if an answer is required to be given to this question of law, it will have to be held that without adverting to provisions of section 12(1)(f) of the Act, the respondents are entitled to demolish the said wall for the purpose of using that shop for continuing their business which is a right of landlord recognised by the Act. 8. When the provisions of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are not attracted in respect of the almirah which is subject-matter of controversy so far as this appeal is concerned, the Civil Court was entitled to pass the decree in favour of the respondents for dispossessing the appellant from said almirah, without considering provisions of "Act". The total effect of the decree which has been put to challenge in this appeal is the same. Therefore, there is no need of any interference from this Court because the decree which has been passed by the trial Court has been confirmed by the first appellate Court. 9. Thus, the appeal will have to be dismissed and it stands dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 300/-, if certified.