JUDGMENT Heard on admission. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1998 passed by First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in regular civil appeal No. 15/98, arising out of the judgment and decree passed by Tenth Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 241/94. The briefly stated the facts are that respondent-plaintiff Dr. (Smt.) Adarsh Deewan filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent on the grounds u/Ss. 12(1) (a), 12(1) (c) and 12(1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. According to the allegation made in the plaint, the suit house was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent from Smt. Shobhna Surange of whom the defendant-appellant was already tenant at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month in the said suit house in question. It is also alleged in the plaint that after purchase of the said house by the plaintiff-respondent from its previous owner Smt. Shobhna Surange the defendant-appellant became the tenant of the plaintiff-respondent. After purchase of the said house a notice was served through counsel on the defendant-appellant demanding monthly rent of the suit premises of which the defendant-appellant sent a reply Ex. P-6. However, despite the notice the defendant-appellant did not make payment of arrears of rent. It was further alleged that the plaintiff-respondent bona fide requires the tenanted premises for the purpose of starting nursing home and for this purpose she has no reasonable alternative accommodation available. The trial Court decreed the suit u/s 12(1) (a), 12(1) (c) and 12(1) (f) of the Accommodation Control Act. The appellant defendant-filed first appeal before the lower appellant Court, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court to be illegal and contrary to law. Lower appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court on the ground u/s 12(1) (a) and 12(1) (f) however, learned lower appellate Court did not find proof u/s 12(1) (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The tenant-appellant-defendant preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court below being illegal and contrary to law. The Court below considered the evidence adduced in the case and documents filed by the parties and arrived at findings that the finding about default of rent is recorded in paragraphs No. 29 to 33 of the judgment. The tenant-appellant-defendant preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court below being illegal and contrary to law. The Court below considered the evidence adduced in the case and documents filed by the parties and arrived at findings that the finding about default of rent is recorded in paragraphs No. 29 to 33 of the judgment. There has been default of rent of 11 months which is considered in paragraph 33 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court. So far as bonafide need is concerned, the accommodation is needed for carrying on her profession and to start nursing home. The said finding is based on the evidence of (PW 1) Dr. Smt. Adarsh Deewan, (PW 2) Dr. Ajit Deewan and the documents filed in the case Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-18. The lower appellate Court has considered the same and arrived at a finding that the accommodation is required bonafide. The said finding is based on the material on record and this Court does not find any infirmity in the same. The said finding is finding of fact. There is no infirmity pointed out. In the opinion of this Court the Court below committed no illegality in passing the decree. Even otherwise this Court has gone through the entire material and the finding of bonafide need is well merited. No substantial questions of law arise in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant realising the scope and merit made a prayer for grant of time to vacate the accommodation. Shri N.K. Jain counsel for the respondent agreed and submitted that some reasonable time be granted but conditions be imposed. Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, in the opinion of this Court, it is just and proper to grant time upto 28th February 1999 to vacate the accommodation subject to the following conditions : 1. That, the appellant shall deposit all arrears of rent, if any, on or before 30th September 99. 2. That, the appellant shall submit an undertaking on or before 30.9.98 to the effect that he shall vacate the premises and hand over the peaceful possession to the respondent-plaintiff on or before 28th February 1999. Undertaking is to be supported by an affidavit to be submitted before the trial Court. 3. That, the appellant shall pay the rent upto 28 February 1999 and the same shall be paid before vacation. 4. Undertaking is to be supported by an affidavit to be submitted before the trial Court. 3. That, the appellant shall pay the rent upto 28 February 1999 and the same shall be paid before vacation. 4. That, if the undertaking is not complied with and the accommodation is not vacated the appellant may be proceeded with for the disobedience of the order under the Contempt of Courts Act as well apart from other proceedings. So far as compensation amount is concerned, it is directed that the plaintiff-respondent shall deposit in the trial Court before issuance of warrant of possession or before taking possession as the case may be. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.