JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 8.1.2008 passed by XI Additional District Judge, Indore, directing eviction on the ground of section 12 (1) (b) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act confirming the findings of the trial Court. While learned trial Court by the judgment dated 25.7.2007 decreed the suit on the ground of 12 (1) (a), (b), (f) and (0), however, the judgment and decree of the trial Court under section 12 (1) (a) and (0) was set aside, while affirmed under section 12 (1) (b) and (f) of the Act. 2. Because the judgment and decree of the Courts below passed under section 12 (1) (b) and (f) has been assailed, therefore, the pleadings related to the ground under section 12 (1) (b) and (f) is being referred. Plaintiff's case in brief was that he is an advocate and doing Advocacy profession in the taxation side. The suit premises is of his ownership, and the defendant is the tenant therein, however, required bona fide for doing his Advocacy profession to which no other suitable alternative accommodation is available in the township of Indore. It is further averred that the tenancy of the defendant was written to him but it was given by him on sub-tenancy to Indore Label Company and the said business is going on in the premises, therefore, the decree of ejectment may be passed. 3. By filing written statement the defendant has denied the bona fide need of the plaintiff as well as the allegation of the sub-tenancy. It was averred that in the suit premises defendant is doing his own business, however, no ground of eviction is made out, hence the plaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned trial Court after going through the statements of the parties found that in the suit shop business in the name of Indore Label Company is running, while the tenancy is in the name of the defendant. It is further held that because the defendant is unable to prove that the Indore Label Company is the business of the defendant, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be safely presumed that the defendant has sub-let or parted with the possession to the suit shop to the Indore Label Company, accordingly the decree under section 12 (1) (b) has been granted. On the point of bona fide need it was held that plaintiff has fully established his need by the statements of the plaintiff and he is also not having any other suitable alternative accommodation available to him, therefore, decree under section 12 (1) (f) was also passed. 5. The appellate Court while confirming the findings on both these points has discussed the evidence in detail and findings of the trial Court has been affirmed by the impugned judgment and decree. Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel appearing for appellant has argued that the plaintiff has not established the ingredients of sub-tenancy as required under section 12 (1) (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It is argued that by the evidence of the plaintiff, it has not been demonstrated that the sub-tenant is in exclusive possession, it has also not been established that some payment of compensation or rent has been paid, right to include or exclude has also not been established, therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below granting decree under section 12 (1) (b) is not tenable and the same is liable to be set aside. On the point of 12 (1) (f) it is argued that plaintiff has not made any case of the bonafide need for doing Advocacy profession because sometimes he used to say that he is Chartered Accountant and sometimes he has shown himself to be an Advocate, therefore, under these inconsistencies the findings recorded by the Courts below to prove the bona fide need of the plaintiff is liable to be set aside. By drawing my attention to the para 27 and 29 of the judgment of lower appellate Court, it is argued that plaintiff has already occupied the possession of other shop of the tenant Sohanlal, therefore, no ground is available to decree the suit under section 12 (1) (f) and the judgment and decree is liable to be set aside due to availability of alternati ve accommodation. 6. On the other hand Shri Rajendra Sugandhi, learned counsel appearing for respondent, has drawn my attention to the pleadings that plaintiff is an Advocate and practicing in taxation side to which the suit premises is required bona fide. Those pleadings have been substantiated by the statement of plaintiff Mahendra Kumar (PW 1). 6. On the other hand Shri Rajendra Sugandhi, learned counsel appearing for respondent, has drawn my attention to the pleadings that plaintiff is an Advocate and practicing in taxation side to which the suit premises is required bona fide. Those pleadings have been substantiated by the statement of plaintiff Mahendra Kumar (PW 1). It is further argued that observation of the lower appellate Court of vacation of the shop by other tenant Sohanlal is correct, but assailing the said judgment of trial Court, a second appeal was preferred, which was dismissed by judgment dated 8.4.2008, wherein the time was granted for vacation of shop till 31.12.2008. Moreover, the said shop as well as the premises of the present case, both are required to him jointly to satisfy the bona fide need of the plaintiff. It is also argued by him that once the bona fide need to start the profession of Advocacy in the suit premises of adjacent shop, which is in possession of Sohanlal, another tenants and in his case the appeal was dismissed and the bona fide need was found proved, the said findings deserve to be upheld in this case also until and unless the changed circumstances are shown by the appellant. In the present case appellant has failed to establish any changed circumstances, therefore, the finding recorded in the case of Sohanlal proving bona fide need of plaintiff may be upheld. Shri Sugandhi, learned counsel appearing for respondent, has drawn my attention to the statement of defendant laverilal, wherein he has admitted that he is doing Advocacy profession in taxation side in the tenanted shop, which was let out in his own name, however, he can continue the Advocacy profession in the suit shop while in his statement he has again admitted that he is doing business in the name of Indore Label Company, though the firm Indore Label Company is in the name of his wife. This fact would reveal from the document filed by the defendant itself at appellate stage by moving an application under Order 41 Rule 27. Thus, it is apparent that the suit shop of the tenancy of his own, wherein firm Indore Label Company, which is in the name of wife of the defendant doing her business. This fact would reveal from the document filed by the defendant itself at appellate stage by moving an application under Order 41 Rule 27. Thus, it is apparent that the suit shop of the tenancy of his own, wherein firm Indore Label Company, which is in the name of wife of the defendant doing her business. Thus, in view of the statement of defendant and in view of those documents, the Courts below have rightly passed the decree under section 12 (1) (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. However, it is argued that the findings concurrently recorded by the Courts below granting decree of eviction under section 12 (1) (b) and (f) are the findings of fact and no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. 7. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that there is a written tenancy by way of rent note Ex. P-I dated 1.10.1974, whereby the suit shop was given in the name of laverilal defendant. Admittedly, the defendant is an Advocate by profession and doing practice in taxation side, however, he cannot run the business in the name of Indore Label Company, which is undisputedly in the name of his wife. At the same time, he himself has filed certain documents at appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC demonstrating the fact that the business of firm Indore Label Company is in the name of his wife, thus it is fully established that tenancy was in the name of laverilal, though the Indore Label Company is in the name of his wife, who is running the business in the suit shop. Since the firm is doing the business in the name of wife of defendant, therefore, the ground of sub-tenancy is made out. In- such circumstances the findings recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court granting decree of eviction on the ground of 12 (1) (b) of the Act is liable to be upheld in view of the facts narrated herein above. In- such circumstances the findings recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court granting decree of eviction on the ground of 12 (1) (b) of the Act is liable to be upheld in view of the facts narrated herein above. In this sequence guidance may be taken from the judgment of this Court in the case of Nandlal and others v. Hukumchand, reported in [1980 MPWN 184 = 1980 MPRCJ 265], wherein the tenancy is in the name of father and the business was running by the son and looking to this aspect decree under section 12 (1) (b) was granted. In that view of the matter the findings recorded by the Courts below granting decree under section 12 (1) (b) do not suffer from any perversity or illegality, thus allowed to sustain. 8. On the point of bona fide need it is admitted that in the appeal another tenant Sohanlal filed by the same plaintiff, the findings of bona fide need of the suit premises for starting Advocacy profession by plaintiff, was found fully established and the judgment and decree passed on the ground of section 12 (1) (f) was upheld therein. Because both the shops are adjacent and required by plaintiff and in the present case no changed circumstances is available on record to disprove his need. While as per the statement of plaintiff, it is fully established that he is an Advocate by profession and practising in taxation side, to support his professional work it is stated by him that at present he is attached with R.D. Joshi & Company. The statement of one Ajay Joshi has also been recorded to support such fact and to demonstrate the working of appellant as an Advocate. However, the appellant, who is doing profession with the another firm is required the suit shop for doing his profession separately and the said need was found proved in another Second Appeal No. 674/ 2007, of another tenant Sohanlal Agrawal of adjacent shop. Considering all these aspects the findings recorded by the Courts below to found prove bona fide need of the plaintiff does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. On the other hand such findings concurrently recorded are the findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with by this Court. Considering all these aspects the findings recorded by the Courts below to found prove bona fide need of the plaintiff does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. On the other hand such findings concurrently recorded are the findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with by this Court. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below granting decree of eviction under section 12 (1) (b) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is liable to be upheld and in the facts and circumstances of the case no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. 9. At this stage, Shri Ahiwasi counsel appearing for appellant prays for time to vacate the suit premises, however, with the consent of the parties, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are liable to be upheld and no substantial questions of law arises for consideration of this Court, hence it is dismissed. (ii) The tenant-appellant shall vacate suit premises on or before 28th February, 2009 and shall continue to deposit the rent regularly in the Court below till then, without parting with possession to any other person in suit shop. (iii) It is hereby directed that the appellant shall submit an undertaking to that effect along with a solvent security of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) for due performance of decree passed by the Courts below within the period of one month from today. On failure to perform the undertaking the respondent shall be at liberty to execute the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations, this appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Certified copy as per rules.