JUDGMENT K.K. Lahoti, J. Defendant aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, has filed present appeal. By the impugned order, learned lower appellate Court decreed the suit of plaintiff/respondent u/s 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and granted a decree for eviction and mesne profits. Facts of the case are that the respondent Ramnarayan filed a suit against Nanhumal, who died during pendency of this appeal and whose legal heirs are brought on record, for eviction from the shop situate in House No. 13, Talaiya Road, Ibrahimpura, Bhopal. The necessity which has been shown in the plaint is to start business of major son Shankar Dayal, who is presently doing business with Ramnarayan and wants to start his own business in the suit shop. Shankar Dayal wants to start his kirana business in the suit shop and is having no other reasonably suitable shop in Bhopal city. Plaintiff served notice on 16-9-1983 to the defendant through his advocate. Appellant contested the suit on the ground that two shops adjoining to the disputed shop are lying vacant in which plaintiff may start business of his son Shankardayal. Apart from this, plaintiff has let out newly constructed shop. There is no bona fide requirement of the shop but, in fact, plaintiff wants to enhance the rent of the shop from Rs. 31.87 to Rs. 100/-. Previously also Shanklardayal started a business but he could not succeed. On this ground suit was prayed to be dismissed. Learned trial Court framed issues and after recording of evidence, arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has alternative shop in which he can start business of his son Shankardayal. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, plaintiff filed an appeal. Learned lower appellate Court after reappreciation of entire evidence arrived at a finding that in the city of Bhopal, plaintiff has no other accommodation in which his son Shankardayal could start his business and presently plaintiff and his son doing business in a rented shop. The shop which defendants state to be an alternative shop available to the plaintiff is not a shop but is a part of residential house. The shop which defendants state to be an alternative shop available to the plaintiff is not a shop but is a part of residential house. The appellants aggrieved by the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court, reversing the judgment of the trial Court, has filed present appeal, which was admitted on 10-11-1995 on following substantial question of law:- Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the first Appellate Court was justified in holding that the three rooms adjoining the suit shop cannot be treated to be the alternative accommodation despite the admission of the plaintiff that these rooms are similarly situated are having the wooden shutters and in one of the room plaintiffs son earlier carried his business? Shri R.K. Samaiya, learned counsel for appellants submits that the lower Appellate Court erred in reappreciating the evidence. From the evidence it is clear that the adjoining shops is available and are lying vacant. These shops are similar to the suit accommodation but plaintiff has not started business of his son in that shop. As alternative shops are available to the plaintiff, suit deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel also submits that plaintiff has not pleaded non-suitability of the shop which is necessary as per law laid down by the Apex Court in Hasmat Rai and Another Vs. Raghunath Prasad, . In the circumstances, evidence led by plaintiff cannot be read for the purpose. Ku. Rashmi Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that lower Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence. There is neither any infirmity nor illegality in appreciating the evidence which can be interfered in this appeal. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence of plaintiff perused. The plaintiff in his statement, in para 2, has stated that in his house there is only one shop which is the disputed suit shop and except this, entire house is residential. Apart from this, he is owning one more house which is occupied by the tenants and except this house, he is not having any shop in the city of Bhopal, owned by him. In para 10 of his statement, during the cross-examination, plaintiff was asked about accommodation adjoining to suit shop having area 6' to 7' wide on road side and there are partition in the veranda on every 6 to 7' and on road side there are doors. In para 10 of his statement, during the cross-examination, plaintiff was asked about accommodation adjoining to suit shop having area 6' to 7' wide on road side and there are partition in the veranda on every 6 to 7' and on road side there are doors. But in the same para plaintiff has stated that these are rooms and are not shops. In cross-examination suggestion was denied that the rooms adjoining the suit shop can be used for starting business by Shankardayal. Defendant in his statement in para 3 has stated that three shops are lying vacant which are similar in construction as of the suit shop and are adjoining to suit shop. Shankardayal may start his business in it. Similar is the evidence of DW 2 Satyanarayan, who has stated that there are shops but in cross-examination he has admitted that this is the part of his residential accommodation. Plaintiff and his witnesses have not been cross-examined on the fact that plaintiff is residing on first floor. Plaintiff has categorically stated in his statement that he is residing on ground floor and the alleged "shop" is a part of residential house. In the circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to convert the residential accommodation into a shop merely because it is said to be shop by the defendant. If the plaintiff is in possession of an accommodation which is a residential accommodation, he cannot be denied a decree for eviction of non-residential accommodation which is in occupation of the defendant. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in the plaint the plaintiff has not explained the aforesaid shops which, according to the defendants, were available to the plaintiff as non-residential accommodation. Plaintiff in his plaint has pleaded that except the suit shop he is having no other non-residential accommodation in the township of Bhopal. The pleading in the plaint is sufficient. Plaintiff is not expected to plead that a residential accommodation in his possession, cannot be used as non-residential accommodation or residential accommodation is not suitable to him to start business of his son. Only obligation on the plaintiff is to explain, if any nonresidential accommodation is available to him. But, if any residential accommodation is available to the plaintiff, he is not expected to explain the suitability of that accommodation for non-residential purposes, as pointed out by the defendants. Only obligation on the plaintiff is to explain, if any nonresidential accommodation is available to him. But, if any residential accommodation is available to the plaintiff, he is not expected to explain the suitability of that accommodation for non-residential purposes, as pointed out by the defendants. In the circumstances, the plaintiff has duly proved his case. The adjoining accommodation is in fact a residential accommodation and is in use of the plaintiff for his family residence. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. Looking to ensuing rainy season reasonable time deserves to be granted to appellants to vacate the suit shop. They are doing business and may face some difficulty to vacate shop during rainy season. In the circumstances, appellants are granted time to vacate the suit shop upto 30-9-2002 on following conditions:- (a) that the appellants will furnish an undertaking within one month to the trial Court that they will vacate the suit shop on or before 30-9-2002 peacefully, without any hindrance and creating any third party interest; (b) that they will deposit entire arrears of rent and costs incurred in the Courts below within a period of one month from today (if already not deposited) and will also comply with the provisions of section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. In failure to comply with the aforesaid conditions, the respondent will be entitled to execute the decree forthwith. Cost of this appeal shall be borne by the parties. Final Result : Dismissed