Judgment ( 1. ) THIS second appeal has been filed by the tenant/defendants, who has lost from both the Courts below. ( 2. ) THE plaintiff Chandra Shekhar filed a suit for eviction against his tenant bhanwarlal. During the pendency of the Civil Suit, defendant-Bhanwarlal died and his legal representatives Smt. Sushila Bai and Shekhar Kanswa (present appellants) have been brought on record. ( 3. ) THE plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction on the relationship of the landlord and tenant by highlighting the grounds envisaged under Section 12 (1) (b), (c) and (i) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity the "act" ). According to the plaintiff, the defendant has inducted a sub-tenant in the suit accommodation and has converted the residential portion for non-residential purposes. Further, it has been pleaded that the defendant has acquired an accommodation suitable for his residence and he is residing in it. On these three grounds, it has been prayed by the plaintiff that the suit be decreed. ( 4. ) THE defendant-Bhanwarlal filed written-statemenf and refuted the plaint averments and specifically denied that any of the ground is made out to get the suit accommodation vacated. ( 5. ) THE learned Trial Court after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground envisaged under Section 12 (1) (c) and (i) of the Act. The learned Trial Court did not find the ground under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act to be proved, hence, did not pass a decree on this ground. ( 6. ) THE defendant assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial court. The plaintiff also filed cross-objections agitating the ground under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act and prayed that a decree be passed on this ground also. ( 7. ) THE learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of tenant and also dismissed the cross-objections filed by the landlord. ( 8. ) IN this manner, this second appeal has been filed by the appellants / tenant assailing the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the two Courts below. ( 9. ) THIS Court on 14. 5. 2008 admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law :- "1. ( 8. ) IN this manner, this second appeal has been filed by the appellants / tenant assailing the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the two Courts below. ( 9. ) THIS Court on 14. 5. 2008 admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law :- "1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court erred in substantial error of law by not deciding the appeal of appellant assailing the judgment and decree passed on the grounds envisaged under section 12 (1) (c) of the Act by the learned Trial Court? 2. Whether the decree passed under Section 12 (1) (i) of the act by the learned Trial Court and, affirmed by learned First appellate Court is dehors to the provisions of law since the house is of the wife of defendant No. 2. " ( 10. ) I have heard Shri A. S. Garg, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Aditya Garg, advocate for appellants and Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned counsel for the respondent. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Regarding substantial question of law No. 1:- ( 11. ) THE learned Trial Court framed issue no. 8 in respect to the ground of eviction under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act and in Para 27 onwards has held that the defendant has changed the user of the accommodation and hence decreed the suit on this ground. ( 12. ) THE tenant by filing an appeal challenged the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court. On going through the entire judgment, I do not find any discussion of the learned First Appellate Court holding that the ground under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act stands proved. Hence, according to me, the learned First appellate Court erred in substantial error of law by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court under Section 12 (1) (c) the Act. This substantial question of law is thus answered in favour of appellants and against the respondent. Regarding substantial question of law No. 2:- ( 13. Hence, according to me, the learned First appellate Court erred in substantial error of law by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court under Section 12 (1) (c) the Act. This substantial question of law is thus answered in favour of appellants and against the respondent. Regarding substantial question of law No. 2:- ( 13. ) ON going through Para 3 clause 1 (a) of the plaint, this Court finds that there is a specific pleading of the plaintiff stating that defendant-Bhanwarlai has purchased a house bearing House No-49/3, Ward No. 22 and has started living in that house with his family members. The averment made in this Para of the plaint has been denied by the defendant in the written-statement. According to the defendant, the said house is in dilapidated condition and he is still residing alongwith his brother in the suit accommodation. In order to prove this ground, the plaintiff has filed certified copy of the- sale deed (Ex. P/9) of defendant-Bhanwarlai. on going through Ex. P/9, this Court finds that the said house was purchased by defendant-Bhanwarlai on 5. 7. 1991. In the sale deed, it has been mentioned that the said house is double storey. The ground floor consists of five rooms and on the first floor, there are four rooms. After the death of defendant-Bhanwarlai, the present appellants were brought on record as defendants in the Trial Court. Appellant Shekhar Kanswa, who is defendant no. 2, examined himself as DW1. In cross-examination Para 30, it has been specifically admitted by him that vide Ex. P/9, one house was purchased by his father (defendant-Bhanwarlai ). Further, he has admitted that the said house was purchased for residential purposes and this house consists of latrine and bathroom. Electric fitting is also there and the house is also having water connection. Further, he has admitted that this house is double storey. He has further admitted that on the ground floor, there are as many as 5 rooms and on the first floor there are 4 rooms. Further, he has admitted that after purchasing the house, his father started living in it. ( 14. ) IN this view of the matter, I am of the view that the ground under Section 12 (1) (i) of the Act has been made out by the landlord to get the suit accommodation vacated. Further, he has admitted that after purchasing the house, his father started living in it. ( 14. ) IN this view of the matter, I am of the view that the ground under Section 12 (1) (i) of the Act has been made out by the landlord to get the suit accommodation vacated. On account of admission by the defendant that he is residing with his family and looking to the description of the house, since it consists of as many as 9 rooms having electrical and water fittings and also consists of latrine and bathroom, I am of the view that the tenant has acquired the vacant possession of a accommodation suitable for his residence. Merely because in Para 33, it has been mentioned by the learned First Appellate Court that the defendant is also residing in the house purchased in the name of his wife, would in itself is not a ground to hold that the defendant is not residing in his own house, which he has purchased vide registered sale deed (Ex. P/9 ). The learned First Appellate Court in Para 33 has also held that in House No. 49/3, which was purchased by defendant-Bhanwarlal, he is residing comfortably. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the decree passed by learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned First appellate Court under Section 12 (1) (i) of the Act does not run dehors to the provisions of the law. The substantial question of law is, thus, answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondent. ( 15. ) AT this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that some breathing time may be allowed to him to vacate the suit premises because in the suit premises their ancestors were residing since 1964. ( 16. ) THIS prayer has been vigorously opposed by Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord. ( 17. ) LOOKING to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby direct to vacate the suit premises within a period of one year on the following conditions :- I) The appellants shall vacate the suit premises on or before 31. 7. 2010 and would not create any third partys interest; ii) the appellants shall deposit the costs of the two Courts below on or before 31. 8. 7. 2010 and would not create any third partys interest; ii) the appellants shall deposit the costs of the two Courts below on or before 31. 8. 2009 in the Trial Court / Executing Court; iii) the appellants shall deposit the entire rent due, if any, on or before 31. 8. 2809 and shall continue to deposit the monthly rent strictly in terms of Section 13 of the Act; iv) the respondent shall be free to withdraw the amount of costs as well as the rent, which shall be deposited by the appellants; v) an undertaking satisfying the aforesaid conditions shall be submitted by the appellants in the Trial Court / Executing Court on or before 31. 8. 2009; and vi) if any of the condition is violated by the appellants, the respondent shall be free to get the decree executed. ( 18. ) FOR the seasons stated hereinabove, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 3,000/-, if pre-certified. Appeal dismissed.