Short Note The appellant-defendant-tenant has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Appeal No. 34A/2000 confirming the judgment and decree of eviction dated 21.9.1999 passed by V Civil Judge, Class-II, Ujjain in civil suit No. 15-A/98. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit of the Respondent/plaintiff for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and the matter stands concluded by the findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below. The learned counsel for the appellant also does not dispute this position that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for determination by this Court. Accordingly this appeal has no merit and is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code. Heard on I.A. No. 499/2001 an application filed by the appellant under section 151 of the Code for allotment of the first floor room of the shop in lieu of the present accommodation on the ground that on 6.3.1998 during the course of cross-examination of tenant (DW1) Mangatram in paragraphs No. 33 and 34 a suggestion was given to the tenant whether he is willing to occupy the room situated at the first floor of the shop in lieu of the present shop. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision of this High Court passed in Second Appeal No. 149 of 1998 (Usmangani v. Mst. Nurunnisa and another) decided on 28.8.1985. This application is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for Respondent-plaintiff orally on the ground that the aforesaid suggestive question was only asked in view of the fact that the appellant-defendant tenant had pleaded that Respondent-landlord is having an alternative accommodation at the first floor of the shop to run a Kirana shop and in answer it was declined by the appellant-tenant. Therefore, this is not the question for consideration or adjudication at this stage of appeal. Considering the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below and also under the facts and circumstances of this case that the aforesaid suggestion was given during the course of cross-examination under the particular set of circumstances which cannot be treated an offer to the appellant/defendant for allotment of another accommodation. Considering the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below and also under the facts and circumstances of this case that the aforesaid suggestion was given during the course of cross-examination under the particular set of circumstances which cannot be treated an offer to the appellant/defendant for allotment of another accommodation. The appellant-defendant had not pleaded in written-statement for the allotment of any such accommodation at the first floor and nor the matter was adjudicated between the parties. Therefore, at this stage no order can be passed to let out another accommodation to the tenant against the wishes of the respondent-plaintiff. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in this application (I.A.No. 499/2001) and it is also dismissed.