Judgment ( 1. ) DEFENDANT aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Courts below has filed present appeal. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff/ respondent bona fidely needed the suit accommodation for business of his major son Kundanlal. ( 2. ) THIS appeal was admitted on 2-8-2000 on following substantial questions of law :- " (i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that it did not matter to the case of the respondent if he did not in the witness box say in so many words that he required the suit shop bona fide for opening a shop of his son Kundanlal ? (ii) Whether the Court below failed to see that it was the requirement of the respondent Hajarilal and not that of his son which gave him right to evict the appellant and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent to say so in the witness box, failing which, it can be presumed that there is no bona fide requirement ? (iii) Whether the evidence led by the appellant in respect of alternative accommodation is in accord with the amendment made in Paragraph 5-A of the plaint stating that the alternative accommodation belonged to Chandra Kumar exclusively ? (iv) Whether the Lower Appellate Court failed to see that in absence of any plea made by the respondent in his plaint that the alternative accommodation is not sufficient for the requirement of his son Kundanlal the respondent could not have given this shop to his grand son Neeraj Kumar son of Chandra Kumar ?" ( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff/respondent has not stated in his statement the words "bona fide "without which decree for eviction could not be passed. It is necessary for the plaintiff to state the words "bona fide" in his statement. He submits that during the pendency of the suit plaintiff got a shop but without pleading non-suitability of the aforesaid shop, suit ought to have been dismissed. He further submits that the plaintiff in place of starting business of Kundanlal has wrongly started business of Neeraj Kumar, grand son in the shop vacated by one Shri Shastri. This fact shows that in fact plaintiff has no bona fide necessity for the suit accommodation and has filed present suit mala fide. ( 4. He further submits that the plaintiff in place of starting business of Kundanlal has wrongly started business of Neeraj Kumar, grand son in the shop vacated by one Shri Shastri. This fact shows that in fact plaintiff has no bona fide necessity for the suit accommodation and has filed present suit mala fide. ( 4. ) TO appreciate the aforesaid contentions of the appellant it is necessary to look into the case of the parties. ( 5. ) RESPONDENT filed suit for eviction on 11-5-91 seeking eviction of the appellant on the ground that the suit shop is bona fidely needed by the plaintiff for starting business to his major son Kundanlal, who is presently unemployed and for this purpose plaintiff is having no other alternative suitable accommodation. Appellant contested the suit on the ground that plaintiff has no bona fide necessity and in fact the purpose of plaintiff is to get vacated the suit accommodation mala fidely and suit was prayed to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/ -. Trial Court after framing the issues, recorded the evidence and decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff bona fidely needed suit shop for business of his son Kundanlal and defendant is tenant at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. So far as the contention of the appellant that plaintiff filed suit to harass the appellant was negatived. On these findings the Trial Court decreed the suit of respondent, but on other grounds dismissed the suit. Against the judgment of Trial Court, both the parties filed separate appeal. During the pendency of appeal, appellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, by which it was pleaded that during the pendency of suit one tenant has vacated one adjoining shop in which Kundanlal, son of plaintiff, has started business. While the aforesaid contention was contested by the respondent who has stated that in the said shop Neeraj Kumar has started business of provisional goods and plaintiff has no interest in the said shop. Considering the rival contention of the parties, Appellate Court by order dated 25th July, 97 remanded the matter to Trial Court to record the evidence and decide the case afresh. After the remand, Trial Court recorded evidence and findings that the plaintiff has proved his bona fide necessity for the suit accommodation. Consequently, the suit was decreed. Considering the rival contention of the parties, Appellate Court by order dated 25th July, 97 remanded the matter to Trial Court to record the evidence and decide the case afresh. After the remand, Trial Court recorded evidence and findings that the plaintiff has proved his bona fide necessity for the suit accommodation. Consequently, the suit was decreed. Against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court appellant again preferred an appeal but by the impugned judgment and decree, the aforesaid appeal was dismissed. Hence this appeal. ( 6. ) SO far as substantial questions of law (i) and (ii) is concerned, both the Courts below have recorded a finding that the plaintiff bona fidely needed suit accommodation to start business of Kundanlal. Merely that the plaintiff in his statement not stated the word "bona fide" by itself will not be a sufficient ground to non-suit the plaintiff. The bona fideness of the plaintiff has to be judged from all the facts and circumstances. Plaintiff is not a judge of his need. The Court on the basis of the facts, circumstances and the evidence has to consider objectively whether the need is bona fide. In the circumstances, merely plaintiff has not stated the word "bona fide" in his evidence by itself will not be sufficient to non-suit him. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to say in the evidence that he needs bona fidely the suit accommodation. Even if plaintiff states the aforesaid word in the evidence, even then Court has to judge all the facts, circumstances and evidence to ascertain whether the need is bona fide. In the circumstances, it is immaterial whether the plaintiff has stated in his statement that he needs the accommodation bona fidely or not. ( 7. ) SO far as the substantial question of law (ii) is concerned, the plaintiff Hajarilal (P. W. 1) in his statement has categorically stated that his son Kundanlal is unemployed and he wants to start business of Kundanlal in the suit accommodation. In fact it is the need of plaintiff for the suit accommodation required by him to start a business for his son. The plaintiff in his statement has categorically stated this fact and both the Courts below have found it in positive. ( 8. In fact it is the need of plaintiff for the suit accommodation required by him to start a business for his son. The plaintiff in his statement has categorically stated this fact and both the Courts below have found it in positive. ( 8. ) SO far as substantial questions of law (iii) and (iv) is concerned, it is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit plaintiff got possession of one shop vacated by one tenant Shastri. He was carrying on Pan Shop and it is a very small shop. In the said shop plaintiffs grand-son Neeraj Kumar has started his business of provisional goods in the name of "neeraj General Stores". In spite of fact that Neeraj Kumar started his business, plaintiffs son Kundanlal still remains unemployed. In Para 6 of cross- examination of Kundanlal Jain, he has explained that said shop is a small and having opening in two sides and it was not suitable for the business of Kundanlal. In Para 8 of his statement, he was asked in respect of area of the shop in which he has categorically stated that the aforesaid shop is so small in which even a she-buffalo could not be tied up. Though the dimensions of the shop has not come on record, but the aforesaid shop vacated by tenant Shastri in which he was running a Pan shop is a small shop and was unsuitable for the business of plaintiffs son Kundanlal. The aforesaid fact has been admitted by defendant Pawan Kumar (D. W. 1) in Para 23 of his statement, in which he has admitted that Shastri was running a Pan Shop in which he was selling supari, tobacco, bidi, etc. In view of the aforesaid admission by the defendant, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted and it is proved that the shop vacated by Shastri is a very small shop in which Kundanlal could not carry on his business. Another contention of the appellant is that the plaintiff has not pleaded non-suitability of the said shop though he has led evidence in this regard and Courts below should not consider the aforesaid statement in absence of the pleading. Another contention of the appellant is that the plaintiff has not pleaded non-suitability of the said shop though he has led evidence in this regard and Courts below should not consider the aforesaid statement in absence of the pleading. Though it was necessary to the plaintiff to plead the aforesaid non-suitability in the plaint, but the Courts below have permitted to lead the evidence, defendant has also cross-examined the plaintiff and led evidence on this and the Courts below have recorded finding in this regard. In the circumstances, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff cannot be discarded on the ground that plaintiff has not pleaded non-suitability of the shop. The Apex Court, in the case of Raj Kumar Khaitan v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun ( AIR 1995 SC 576 ) in Para 3 held :- "3. It is clear from the averments made in the above quoted paragraphs that the plaintiffs asserted that there was no other means of livelihood with them and as such they wanted to set up their own business in the premises in dispute. The High Court, however, came to the conclusion that apart from above quoted pleadings it was necessary to plead the nature of the business which the appellants/plaintiffs wanted to start in the premises. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error. It was not necessary for the appellants/plaintiffs to indicate the precise nature of the business which they intended to start in the premises. Even if the nature of business would have been indicated nobody could bind the landlords to start the same business in the premises after it was vacated. " In view of the settled position by the Apex Court, even plaintiff has not pleaded specifically non-suitability of shop vacated by tenant Shastri but when he has pleaded non-availability of the suitable accommodation in Para 5 of plaint, and led evidence, and both the parties have gone into trial and contested, in the circumstances, no prejudice is caused to appellant. In the circumstances, in absence of pleading in respect of shop vacated by Shastri, when there is pleading of non-availability of suitable shop, if both the Courts below have considered the material and recorded a finding that it is not suitable to plaintiff, then appellant cannot make a grievance in this regard. The contention of appellant cannot be accepted. ( 9. The contention of appellant cannot be accepted. ( 9. ) LAST contention of the appellant that plaintiff in Para 5 of the plaint has pleaded that shop vacated by tenant Shastri in which Neeraj has started his business belongs to his son Chandra Kumar is concerned, the appellant has not denied the aforesaid fact in written statement, though in Para 8-A of written statement stated that Kundanlal has started his general business. Merely the plaintiff in plaint pleaded that aforesaid shop belongs to Chandra Kumar in which Neeraj Kumar has started his business, by itself will not be a malafide intention on part of the plaintiff. The respondent has utilised the aforesaid shop by opening a business for his grand-son. It is not the case of the appellant that after getting the aforesaid shop, plaintiff has let it out. On the contrary, if the plaintiffs grand-son has started his business in the said shop, then this is not a malafide act on his part. Even if the part of the explanation of plaintiff in Para 5-A of the plaint is not proved, then other part of the contention is proved in the case that the aforesaid shop is occupied by plaintiffs grand-son Neeraj Kumar and he is running business of provisional goods in the said shop. In the circumstances, appellant cannot get any benefit of the aforesaid facts. ( 10. ) IN the circumstances, this appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( 11. ) AS the appellant is running business in the suit shop, in the circumstances, appellant is entitled to sometime to vacate the suit shop. The appellant is permitted to occupy suit shop on following conditions :- (a) If the appellant files an undertaking within a period of one month from today that he will vacate the suit shop on or before 31st March, 2003, he will not create any third party interest in the suit shop and will deliver vacant possession of the suit shop on or before the due date to plaintiff/respondent. He will be permitted to occupy the shop till then; (b) Appellant will deposit entire arrears of rent and costs incurred in Courts below (if already not deposited) within a period of 30 days and will continue to pay rent as required under Section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. He will be permitted to occupy the shop till then; (b) Appellant will deposit entire arrears of rent and costs incurred in Courts below (if already not deposited) within a period of 30 days and will continue to pay rent as required under Section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. In case of default by the appellant, respondent will be entitled to execute the decree forthwith.