ORDER (Oral) 1. The appeal is filed assailing the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff under section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'); while on consideration of the cross objection, the lower appellate Court while upholding the judgment of trial Court granted decree of eviction under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act also. However, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below of eviction of the suit premises appellants have filed this appeal. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff Mahendra Kumar has filed a suit seeking decree of eviction of the suit premises of House No. 79, Bada Sarafa, Indore for doing the profession of advocacy and of such establishment. The said property initially belonged to the plaintiffs father and later on by way of released deed he has become owner thereof and the suit premises was required bona fide, and during pendency of the Civil Suit amendment applications were moved seeking decree of eviction, allegedly available on the grounds of sections 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (b), 12 (1) (c) and 12 (1) (k) of the Act; while as per defendant all the grounds were not pleaded in the plaint initially, but to explain those grounds amendments were allowed and incorporated by the Court. 3. Learned trial Court after framing various issues passed a decree of eviction on the ground of section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (f) of the Act. The appeal preferred by the tenant against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court and on the basis of cross objection the decree under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act was also granted. 4. Shri P.M. Bafna, learned counsel has extraneously urged that the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application for amendment, because the appellant was ex parte before the trial Court; however, while allowing such an application for amendment notice ought to have been issued to other side. In sl1pport of such contention reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Mahesh Singh and others v. Sevaram and others [ 2001 (1) MPLJ 407 ]. In sl1pport of such contention reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Mahesh Singh and others v. Sevaram and others [ 2001 (1) MPLJ 407 ]. In view of said submission it is urged that the decree under section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (b) of the Act, granted by the Courts below, on the basis of such amendment is liable to be vitiated and the judgment and decree deserve to be set aside. It is further urged that the respondent while filing cross objection before the learned lower appellate Court has not affixed Court-fees thereupon, however, such cross objection cannot be entertained and the grant of decree by the lower appellate Court on the ground of section 12 (1) (b) of the Act is also liable to be vitiated. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the apex Court in the case of Superintending Engineer· and others v. B. Subba Reddy, reported in [1999 (2) MPLJ 187]. Shri Bafna has further submitted that during pendency of the appeal he has moved two applications: one under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the written statement on the basis of a subsequent event of vacation of two rooms; however, rejection of such application is arbitrary, particularly the suit is of bona fide need. Counsel further submits that nature of the accommodation either required for residential purpose or for the nonresidential purpose may be looked into by the Court after adducing the evidence by the parties; however, at initial stage such amendment should be thrown out. In support of such contention reliance has also been placed on a judgment in the case of Hakimuddin Salfi v. Prem Narayan, reported in [ 1997 (2) MPLJ 360 ]. In support of such contention reliance has also been placed on a judgment in the case of Hakimuddin Salfi v. Prem Narayan, reported in [ 1997 (2) MPLJ 360 ]. At the last, Shri Bafna submits that the stand taken by the respondent to demonstrate the bona fide need is not consistent, sometimes he has said that the suit premises is required for starting the business of Chartered Accountant or to start advocacy profession, though, a person cannot perform both the professions simultaneously, therefore, in such case the decree of eviction on the ground of bona fide need granted by the Courts below cannot be said to be the bona fide and the findings recorded by the Courts below in this regard are unsustainable in law and, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri Rajendra Sugandhi, counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has argued and supported the findings recorded by the Courts below and it is urged that in the suit itself all the grounds of eviction were pleaded, but to explain those pleadings the amendment was sought which was allowed by the trial Court. It is further urged that the appellant was initially appeared before the Court below and later on proceeded no instruction; however, proceeded ex parte. In such circumstances the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was rightly allowed by the trial Court. It is also urged that even proceeding ex parte the appellant has participated in the proceedings, therefore, no prejudice has been caused; however, the learned trial Court, after due appreciation of the evidence and the material available on record, has rightly passed the decree of eviction under section 12 (1) (f) and 12 (1) (a) of the Act. The trial Court below has recorded the finding that the appellant has made the payment of rent after 1992 in one instalment; thereafter, rent was deposited, but after interval of six months and one year, without making any application for condonation of delay, therefore, decree of eviction has rightly been passed under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act. The trial Court below has recorded the finding that the appellant has made the payment of rent after 1992 in one instalment; thereafter, rent was deposited, but after interval of six months and one year, without making any application for condonation of delay, therefore, decree of eviction has rightly been passed under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act. It is further submitted by Shri Sugandhi that the trial Court has recorded a finding that respondent is registered as an advocate in the State Bar Council and the statement of colleague advocate of doing profession with him was recorded; however, the finding as recorded to require the suit premises bona fide by the plaintiff is neither perverse nor illegal. Shri Sugandhi has further urged that before lower appellate Court cross objection was filed to grant decree under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act. On the said cross objection requisite Court fees was affixed as apparent from the record. Therefore, the argument as advanced by Shri Bafna regarding non-affixture of the Court fee stamps is without any basis. In continuation it is submitted by him that the learned lower appellate Court, after due appreciation of the evidence, in paragraphs 31 and 36 of its judgment has rightly granted decree under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act. It is also submitted by him that learned trial Court was also of the view in paragraph 18 of his judgment, that the ground under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act is available, but decree was not granted merely because sub-tenant was not joined as party to the proceeding. He has submitted that joining of the sub-tenant as party to the proceeding is not necessary; however, learned lower appellate Court has not committed any error in granting decree under section 12 (1) (b). In view of the above submissions it is urged that no substantial question arises and this appeal deserves dismissal at admission stage itself. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the pleadings it is apparent that while filing the suit plaintiff Mahendra Kumar has pleaded for non-payment of rent, bona fide requirement and sub-letting by the defendant-appellant. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the pleadings it is apparent that while filing the suit plaintiff Mahendra Kumar has pleaded for non-payment of rent, bona fide requirement and sub-letting by the defendant-appellant. By way of an amendment the explanation of those pleadings was allowed by the trial Court; however, on going through the pleadings and order of allowing amendment I am of the view that no substantial change in the pleadings was made by way of an amendment. It is seen from the record that the appellant was proceeded ex parte in the trial Court, but participated in the proceedings. He has been permitted to cross examine on the witnesses adduced by the plaintiff and the opportunity of hearing was allowed. In such circumstances merely allowing amendment to explain pleadings no prejudice has been caused to the tenant particularly when the bona fide need has been established by the plaintiff for starting his profession of advocacy and of such establishment. I have gone through the evidence as adduced by the parties thereby it is apparent that the plaintiff is an advocate and also assisting some firms of the Chartered Accountancy by looking the accounts of the Income Tax of various persons. It is also apparent from the record that he is doing profession along with other advocates and their statements have been recor,ded by the trial Court. The finding as recorded by the Courts below that the respondent is not having any suitable accommodation for doing his profession, therefore, the bona fide need for starting the profession has rightly been found proved by the Courts below. On the other hand the appellant has not made payment of rent regularly, but remained defaulter in depositing such rent without applying for condonation of delay and the finding in this regard has rightly been recorded by the Court below. So far as ground of section 12 (1) (b) of the Act of sub-letting of the suit premises is concerned, it is seen from the record that the learned trial Court has recorded finding that ground under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act is available, but the decree was refused, because sub-tenant was not joined as party to the suit; while learned lower appel1ate Court has rightly granted decree under section