ORDER 1. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Writ petition has been filed as against order dt.6.9.2007 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed by the defendant/petitioner that the trial Court was not having the jurisdiction to hear the case pertaining to the bonafide requirement of category of landlord covered u/s. 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Trial Court has held that it was having the jurisdiction to hear the case. Consequently the writ petition has been preferred. 3. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in the plaint though the arrears of rent had been denied, however, there is no decree sought on the ground contemplated u/s. 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Vacant possession of the shop has been sought. He has relied upon the Single Bench decision of this Court in Nandlal v. Mangibai, 2006 (II) MPWN 28 = 2009 (1) JLJ 244 = 2006 (1) MPLJ 231 . 4. Per contra, Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sulochana v. Rajinder Singh ILR 2006 (II) MPWN 28 =2009 (I) JLJ 244 = (2008) MP 2487. He has submitted that the suit has not only been filed for bonafide requirement, but issue goes to indicate that the decree for ejectment and amendment has also been sought. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Sulochana v. Rajinder Singh (supra) wherein the apex Court has dealt with the same question. The Apex Court has laid down thus: "30. It is, therefore, evident that not only a decree for eviction was passed, a decree for payment of arrears of rent, which otherwise could not have been granted by the Rent Controller, was also passed." "43. Thus, any matter which stricto sensu does not come within the purview of Chapter ill-A would be entertainable by a civil Court. The ratio of the decisions, in our opinion, was wrongly applied." 6. Thus, any matter which stricto sensu does not come within the purview of Chapter ill-A would be entertainable by a civil Court. The ratio of the decisions, in our opinion, was wrongly applied." 6. As decree is sought on the ground of arrears of rent and other ground of bonafide requirement, the decision of this Court in Nandlal v. Mangibai (supra) has to be understood and applied in the light of the decision of the Apex Court. We find no merit in the petition. Same is dismissed. Trial Court to expedite the suit as trial has remained stayed for the last several years, and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. No costs.