Judgment ( 1. ) HAVING lost from both the Courts below, the unsuccessful defendant (tenant) has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this second appeal Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. ( 2. ) IN brief the suit of plaintiffs/respondents is that appellant/defendant is their tenant at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. The suit accommodation is given to him for residential purpose. The defendant has constructed his own residential house bearing No. 923/5/1511 and, therefore, under Section 12 (1) (i) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short the Act) the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of eviction. Another ground of eviction under Section 12 (1) (i) i. e. default in making payment of monthly rent was also taken in the pleadings in the plaint. The plaintiffs thus prayed that their suit be decreed and suit accommodation be got vacated from the defendant. ( 3. ) THE defendant/appellant denied the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that no rent is due on him. It has also been set-forth in the written statement that he purchased one house in Kumari mohalla nearby country made liquor plant (Sharab bhatti) and that house is in remote area as a result of which said accommodation is not suitable for his residence. ( 4. ) THE trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed necessary issues. The parties thereafter led their evidence. The trial Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence came to hold that ground under Section 12 (1) (i) of the Act is made out, as a result of which passed a decree of eviction from the suit premises against the appellants. ( 5. ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree/ the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the appellate Court which has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence this second appeal has been filed. ( 6. ) THIS Court on 28. 11. 1995 admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the first appellate Court was justified in not considering the question which was raised before it and, was recorded by the Court in para 7 of its judgment ? ) THIS Court on 28. 11. 1995 admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the first appellate Court was justified in not considering the question which was raised before it and, was recorded by the Court in para 7 of its judgment ? (2) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the first appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the basic requirements of Section 12 (1) (i) of the Act, which speaks of tenant has built, acquired vacant possession or has been allotted? ( 7. ) ON going through the judgment passed by the appellate Court it is revealed that it had concurred with the view and the finding of the trial Court. ( 8. ) BOTH the substantial questions of law are being answered in the following manner: There is a specific pleading of plaintiffs that defendant had acquired a residential house. On going through the written statement it gathered that this fact is admitted by the defendant. However, his stand is that his residential house is in a remote area and is unsuitable for the residence because nearby it there is a country made liquor plant (Sharab bhatti ). Though defendant tried to twist the facts and tried to somersault the entire case in his evidence stating therein that the said house he gave to his wife in Mehar, therefore, he is not the owner of the said house. But, this fact is proved from his statement that the said accommodation is residential and it has been let out at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to a tenant who is residing in it. So far as ownership of that house is concerned, there is variance between pleadings and proof of the defendant. In the written statement nowhere he has pleaded that another house which he acquired is not of his own but is of his wife. On going through the averments made in the pleadings on page of the written statement it is gathered that defendant has admitted the fact that he purchased a residential house in Kumhari Mohalla, but it is not suitable for his residence since it is situated nearby a country made liquor plant. On going through the averments made in the pleadings on page of the written statement it is gathered that defendant has admitted the fact that he purchased a residential house in Kumhari Mohalla, but it is not suitable for his residence since it is situated nearby a country made liquor plant. Nowhere in the pleadings it has been pleaded by defendant that the said house is of his wife and not of his own. The Courts below after appreciating the evidence came to hold that the house which has been acquired by defendant is residential house and in that house one tenant has been inducted. In the statement of defendant it has been stated that the, said accommodation is let out for Rs. 200/- per month for residence. If the tenant of defendant can live and reside in that house, why he cannot live and reside in the said accommodation. Thus, it cannot be said that the said accommodation is hot suitable for the residence of defendant/appellant. On going through the finding arrived at by the two Courts below, which is pure finding of fact, it is perceptible that defendant after purchasing the house inducted one tenant who is residing therein. Thus on the date when he purchased the said house he was having vacant possession, but later on he let it out. ( 9. ) IN this view of the matter, I am of the view that plaintiffs/respondents have proved the ground of eviction as envisaged under Section 12 (1) (i) of the Act. On going through the finding arrived at by the appellate Court in para 12 of the judgment it is gathered that defendant acquired a house which he let out for Rs. 200/- per month. Defendant himself is paying the rent of the suit accommodation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. The substantial questions of law framed are answered accordingly. ( 10. ) IN the result, this appeal is found to be devoid of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.