JUDGMENT V.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-3-1990 in Civil Appeal No. 48-A/88, by IInd Additional District Judge, Raipur, decreeing the claim of the plaintiff/respondent for eviction and recovery of rent, mesne profits etc, by reversing the judgment and decree dated 4-4-1998 in Civil Suit No. 199-A/87 by IX Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur (MP). 2. Undisputably, the plaintiff/respondent is the owner and landlord of House No. 15/104 situate at Jawahar Nagar Raipur. The defendant/appellant is the tenant of the plaintiff/respondent therein at the monthly rent of Rs. 65/-. 3. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit under Section 12(1) (h) of the M. P Accommodation Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), alleging that the suit accommodation is old and dilapidated and the plaintiff/respondent wishes to demolish the same and reconstruct a new building thereon, which cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated by the defendant/appellant. The plaintiff/respondent further pleaded that he had got the plans and estimates prepared for the proposed reconstruction and he was possessed of necessary funds for the purpose. It was also pleaded that the proposed reconstruction will not radically alter the purpose for which the accommodation was let out. 4. The defendant/appellant resisted the suit. He denied that the suit accommodation is old and dilapidated. It was also denied that the plaintiff/respondent bona fide required it for reconstruction or had got plans and estimates prepared and had sufficient funds with him for the purpose of reconstruction. 5. The learned trial Court after consideration of the circumstances and evidence on record held that the plaintiff/respondent has failed to prove that the suit accommodation was old and dilapidated. It was further held that the suit accommodation was in good habitable condition. It was also held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff/respondent has failed to prove that he bona fide required the suit accommodation for reconstruction. It was, therefore, held that the plaintiff/respondent had not proved ground of eviction under Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act'; and his suit was dismissed. 6. The plaintiff-land lord preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court, which was allowed. It was, therefore, held that the plaintiff/respondent had not proved ground of eviction under Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act'; and his suit was dismissed. 6. The plaintiff-land lord preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court, which was allowed. The learned lower Appellate Court was of the view, as would appear from para 11 of the impugned judgment that the plaintiff/respondent was not required to prove that the suit accommodation is in a dilapidated condition, and that he has only to establish that the suit accommodation was required bona fide for reconstruction. It has been held by the learned lower Appellate Court that the plans and estimates for the proposed reconstruction as also the availability of funds with him, have been duly proved, by the landlord/plaintiff. It has further been proved that by the proposed reconstruction, there would be no radical change in the nature of suit accommodation. Accordingly, the learned lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff-landlord has duly established the ground under Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act'. Appeal was accordingly allowed and the suit of the plaintiff-landlord was decreed. 7. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law : "Whether, the decree granted under Section 12(1)(h) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act is vitiated as the pleadings in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 were overlooked by the Courts below?" 8. To decide the question, it would be useful to reproduce Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act' which reads : "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 re-building or alterations cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated." Further Section 12(7) of the 'Act' places conditions and rider on the grant of decree under Section 12(1) (h) of the 'Act' as below :- "No order for the 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 plans and estimates of such reconstruction have been properly prepared and that necessary funds for the purpose are available with the landlord." 9. As noticed earlier, the suit of plaintiff/respondent for eviction of the defendant/appellant was brought under Section 12(1) (h) of the 'Act' alleging in para 4 of the plaint that the suit accommodation has become old and dilapidated and was required bona fide by the plaintiff-landlord. It was further pleaded that the reconstruction cannot take place without the accommodation being vacated by the defendant/appellant. The plaintiff/respondent has got the plans and estimates for the proposed reconstruction prepared and that the proposed reconstruction will not radically alter the purpose for which the accommodation was let out. 10. It may be noticed in the above connection that the plaintiff/respondent Manoharchand (P.W. 2) did not state anything regarding the condition of the house, and has thus, not substantiated his above mentioned pleading that the suit accommodation is old or dilapidated. He has simply stated that the house is about 35-40 years old and that he wants to demolish and reconstruct the same. Manohar Chand (P.W. 2) in cross- examination has candidly admitted that his tenant-the defendant is in occupation of the suit property for about 30 years, and that he went inside the suit house as far back as about 15-20 years back, and that he cannot state as to what was the condition of the suit house from inside. However, he has hastened to add that from outward appearance the house appears to be in weak condition. Similarly, Lalit Kumar (P.W. 4) - son of the plaintiff, has also not stated anything about the condition of the house. Thus from the above statements of plaintiff Manohar Chand (P.W. 2) and his son Lalit Kumar (P.W. 4) it does not appear that the suit house is in a dilapidated condition. 11. The plaintiff/respondent has examined one Engineer Laxman Singh (P.W. 1). However, it would appear from his statement that he only prepared estimate (Ex.P/1). He has however, not stated anything about the condition of the house. Thus, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that the suit property is in a dilapidated condition. 12. As against this, the defendant/appellant had examined A. K. Ayangar (DW/1) who is a retired over-seer and he has positively stated that the condition of the house is good and it does not require any repairs for the next 20-25 years. The defendant Varanmal (DW/2) has also stated that the condition of the house is good. 12. As against this, the defendant/appellant had examined A. K. Ayangar (DW/1) who is a retired over-seer and he has positively stated that the condition of the house is good and it does not require any repairs for the next 20-25 years. The defendant Varanmal (DW/2) has also stated that the condition of the house is good. He is corroborated in the above regard by Rajkumar (DW/4) and Jagdish (DW/5). The statements as above of the defendants' witnesses were rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court, which held in para 6 of its judgment that the suit house is not in a dilapidated condition, as has been alleged by the plaintiff/respondent in para 3 of the plaint. 13. The above finding of the trial Court has not been disturbed by the learned lower Appellate Court. However, as mentioned earlier also, the lower Appellate Court appears to be of the view that the condition of the house is not a relevant consideration, while considering the claim of the landlord for eviction of the tenant under Section 12(1) (h) of the 'Act'. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the above approach and reasoning of the lower Appellate Court, and has urged that though it is true that there is no statutory requirement for the landlord seeking eviction under Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act' to establish in all cases that the house is in dilapidated condition requiring repair or demolition. It has, however, been submitted that in view of the specific pleadings of the plaintiff-landlord that as the suit accommodation is old and dilapidated, he requires it for reconstruction, consideration of condition of the tenanted premises becomes a relevant and important factor, before a decree could be granted under Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act'. It has therefore been urged that the learned lower Court was not justified in granting a decree under Section 12 (1)(h) of the 'Act' by setting aside the judgment of trial Court. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel in support of his contentions as above on Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal, AIR 1963 SC 499 , Metalware & Co. v. Bansilal, AIR 1979 SC 1559 , Metalware and Co. v. Bansilal, 1980 MPRCJ 39 and Vijay Singh v. Vijaylaxmi Ammal, (1996) 6 SCC 475 . 15. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel in support of his contentions as above on Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal, AIR 1963 SC 499 , Metalware & Co. v. Bansilal, AIR 1979 SC 1559 , Metalware and Co. v. Bansilal, 1980 MPRCJ 39 and Vijay Singh v. Vijaylaxmi Ammal, (1996) 6 SCC 475 . 15. Learned counsel for the respondent/tenant has however supported the impugned judgment and decree, and has urged that the learned lower Appellate Court was within its rights to reappraise the evidence and material on record and was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The claim of plaintiff/landlord for eviction of appellant/tenant on the ground of reconstruction under Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act' will have to be considered in the perspective of his pleadings. In plaint para 3, the plaintiff/respondent pleaded that the suit accommodation is old and dilapidated, and that the plaintiff wishes to demolish the accommodation and to undertake reconstruction, and thus required the suit accommodation for reconstruction. Obviously therefore, the specific case of the plaintiff/respondent was that he wishes to reconstruct the suit accommodation as it was old and dilapidated. In view of the specific case pleaded as above by the plaintiff/landlord himself, the condition of the building would be vital and constitute relevant consideration while considering the requirement of the landlord under Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act'. 16. In Metalware & Co. v. Bansilal (supra), which was a case under Section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which is pari materia to Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act'. It was observed by the Supreme Court: "As stated earlier it cannot be disputed that the phrase used in Section 14(1)(b) of the Act is the building is 'bona fide required by the landlord' for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction and the same clearly refers to the bona fide requirement of the landlord it is also true that the requirement in terms is not that the building should need immediate demolition and reconstruction. But we fail to appreciate how the state or condition of the building and the extent to which it could stand without immediate demolition and reconstruction in future would be a totally irrelevant factor while determining "the bona fide requirement of the landlord". But we fail to appreciate how the state or condition of the building and the extent to which it could stand without immediate demolition and reconstruction in future would be a totally irrelevant factor while determining "the bona fide requirement of the landlord". If the Rent Controller has to be satisfied about the bona fide requirement of the landlord which must mean genuineness of his claim in that behalf the Rent Controller will have to take into account all the surrounding circumstances including not merely the factors of the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds to undertake the project and steps taken by him in that regard but also the existing condition of the building, its age and situation and possibility or otherwise of its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction. All these factors being relevant must enter the verdict of the Rent Controller on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section 14(1)(b). In a sense if the building happens to be decrepit or dilapidated it will readily make for the bona fide requirement of the landlord, though that by itself in the absence of any means being possessed by the landlord would not be sufficient. Conversely a landlord being possessed of sufficient means to undertake the project of demolition and reconstruction by itself may not be sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement if the building happens to be a very recent construction in a perfectly sound condition and its situation may prevent its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction. In any case these latter factors may cast a serious doubt on the landlord's bona fide requirement. It is, therefore, clear to us that the age and condition of the building would certainly be a relevant factor which will have to be taken into account while pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and the same cannot be ignored." 17. Similarly, in Vijay Singh's case (supra) which was also a case under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the Apex Court has held that permission under Section 14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Controller on mere asking of the landlord, that he proposes to immediately demolish the building in question to erect a new building. Similarly, in Vijay Singh's case (supra) which was also a case under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the Apex Court has held that permission under Section 14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Controller on mere asking of the landlord, that he proposes to immediately demolish the building in question to erect a new building. It was further observed that for recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bona fide, the Rent Controller has to take into account : (1) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act. It was also observed that these are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Section 14(1)(b). No court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of the building. That factor has to be taken into consideration along with other factors and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller. 18. In Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal (supra) which was a case for eviction based on Section 13(3)(a)(iii) and (b) of Pepsu Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance which enables the controller to allow the claim of the landlord for eviction if he required it for re-erection of the building, if he was satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide. It was observed in that case that before a landlord can obtain an order for ejectment of his tenant on the ground of his requirement for reconstruction of a house, he must satisfy the Rent Controller about genuineness of his claim and this can only be established by looking at all the surrounding circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord and so on. It was further observed that it is not enough that the landlord comes forward and says that he entertains a particular intention, however strongly, said to be entertained by him. 19. It was further observed that it is not enough that the landlord comes forward and says that he entertains a particular intention, however strongly, said to be entertained by him. 19. In Shyamlal Agrawal v. Ratanlal Malviya, AIR 1991 SC 353 , it was observed that there is no statutory requirement that while considering the bonafide need of the landlord for reconstruction of the suit accommodation under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act, the building must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition requiring repair of demolition, but bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act' may include many relevant factors i.e. the need of the landlord to put the building for better use, to obtain higher income, the condition of the building, shortage of accommodation and necessity of having larger accommodation, the capacity of the landlord to rebuild the accommodation, his financial resources etc. 20. In the instant case as noticed earlier, the case of the plaintiff- landlord himself was that the reconstruction was proposed by him as the building was old and dilapidated. The finding of the learned trial Court recorded after detailed consideration of material and evidence on record was that the plaintiff-landlord has failed to establish that the building was old and dilapidated. Thus, the plaintiff failed to substantiate his case as set up by him, for reconstruction of the suit house. Therefore, the very bottom of the case as set up by the plaintiff-land lord was knocked out and his suit was therefore rightly dismissed by the trial Court. 21. The learned lower Appellate Court however, without disturbing the above well reasoned finding of the learned trial Court has observed, that the condition and age of the building were not relevant factors and that the case of Metalware & Co. (supra) was not applicable and would not govern the case in hand. The learned lower Appellate Court granted decree under Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act', merely on the basis that the plaintiff landlord has got prepared the plans and estimates and that sufficient funds for reconstruction were available with him. The above observations and approach of the learned lower Appellate Court were clearly unwarranted. 22. The learned lower Appellate Court granted decree under Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act', merely on the basis that the plaintiff landlord has got prepared the plans and estimates and that sufficient funds for reconstruction were available with him. The above observations and approach of the learned lower Appellate Court were clearly unwarranted. 22. In the circumstances, since the plaintiff/respondent has not been able to establish the case set up by him that the building was old and dilapidated and therefore he required it for reconstruction, the learned lower Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The plaintiff could not succeed in his suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act' ; merely because he had prepared the plans and estimates for the proposed reconstruction or he was possessed of some funds. His statement does not justify and substantiate the case for reconstruction as set up by him. Therefore, the genuineness of the claim of the plaintiff- landlord for reconstruction having been not established, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court deserves to be set aside, and that of learned trial Court deserves to be restored. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for eviction of defendant/appellant under Section 12(1)(h) of the 'Act' stands dismissed. However, parties in the circumstances of the case are left to bear their own costs of this appeal.