Judgment N.K.Mody, J. ( 1. ) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.2.2009 passed by Ist Addl.District Judge, Shajapur in Civil Appeal No.36-A/2008, whereby the judgment dated 31.10.2008 passed by Ilnd Civil Judge Class I, Shajapur in Civil Suit No. 1-A/2008, whereby a decree of eviction was passed against the appellants under section 12(l)(d) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act,1961 (which shall be referred hereinafter as "the Act") was confirmed, the present appeal has been filed. ( 2. ) The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether the Courts below were justified in not considering the reasonable cause of the appellant No.l in not running his business in the suit plot consistently due to the malafides of the respondents in not allowing him running his business therefrom ? (2) Whether the Courts below were justified in misreading Ex.D/ 1, which is the statement of original plaintiff, Nandkishore, who had stated in para 14 therein that he had an objection if the appellant No.l constructs the shade in the suit plot and runs his business therefrom ? (3) Whether the Courts below were justified in misreading the decree passed in civil suit No.110-A/95 in which the trial Court had granted injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering in the business of the appellant No.l from the suit premises and allowing him to construct the shade over the suit plot ?" ( 3. ) Short facts of the case are that deceased Nandkishore predecessor in title of respondents filed a suit for eviction against the appellants on 8.12.2001 alleging that the appellants are tenant of the respondents on a piece of land situated at Nai Sadak, Jawahar Marg, Shajapur. It was alleged that the accommodation, which is in occupation of appellants are having a length of 45 feet from East to West and 50 feet from North to South. It was alleged that rent was Rs.20/- per month. It was alleged that suit accommodation was given to the appellants for carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of furniture. It was alleged that appellants constructed a wooden shade and was doing the business of furniture in the name and style of M/s Malwa Furnitures. It was alleged that in the month of September, 1996 the structure, which was constructed by the appellants fell down. It was alleged that appellants constructed a wooden shade and was doing the business of furniture in the name and style of M/s Malwa Furnitures. It was alleged that in the month of September, 1996 the structure, which was constructed by the appellants fell down. It was alleged that prior to 4-5 months of Sept., 1996 appellants closed the business and started same business in a shop of Habeeb Bohra at Nai Sadak. It was alleged that since then appellants are not using the suit accommodation for carrying on the business. Further case of the appellants was that since Spet.,1996 because of felling down of the structure the suit accommodation is lying vacant and the same is not being used for carrying on the business. It was alleged that appellants are not using the accommodation since Sept., 1996 for the purpose for which it was let out. Thus, the respondents are entitled for a decree of eviction against the appellants under Section 12(l)(d) of the Act. It was prayed that the decree of eviction be passed. ( 4. ) The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statement, wherein it was not disputed that appellants are the tenant in the suit accommodation. It was also not disputed that the suit accommodation was a open piece of land on which wooden structure was raised by the appellants. It was alleged that in the month of Sept.,1996 the wooden structure constructed by the appellants felled down because it was damaged by the respondents and their sons. It was alleged that the material, which wis kept in the shop was also removed by the respondents, so that the appellants could not carry on their business in the suit accommodation. It was denied that wooden structure constructed over the suit accommodation was in a dilapidated condition. It was also denied that appellants stopped the business over the suit accbmmodation prior to 4-5 months of Spet.,1996. It was also denied that appellants have shifted their business of manufacturing of furniture in the shop of Habeeb Bohra. Further case of the appellants was that appellants tried to renovate the structure but respondent and his sons created obstructions. It was alleged that appellant No.1 also filed a suit against the respondents for permanent injunction, which was numbered as Civil Suit No.110-A/95. Further case of the appellants was that appellants tried to renovate the structure but respondent and his sons created obstructions. It was alleged that appellant No.1 also filed a suit against the respondents for permanent injunction, which was numbered as Civil Suit No.110-A/95. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 moved an application in the said suit, wherein misdeeds of the respondent were pointed out. It was alleged that the suit filed by the appellant No.l was suitably amended by the appellant No.l and vide judgment dated 30.4.2001 the learned trial Court found that respondents have created obstruction in constructing the structure over the suit land and the injunction was also passed in favour of the appellants, whereby respondents were restrained not to obstruct in raising the structure over the suit accommodation. It was alleged that against the said judgment an appeal was filed by the respondents, which was numbered as Civil Appeal No.28-A/91 and was dismissed by District Judge, Shajapur on 29.1.2002. It was prayed that in the facts and circumstances of the case the suit filed by the respondents be dismissed as no ground for eviction is made out. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and decreed the suit filed by the respondents, against which the appeal was filed, which was also dismissed, hence this appeal. ( 5. ) Learned counsel for the appellants submit that judgment passed by both the Courts below are illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that learned Courts below committed error in not taking into consideration the fact that the appellants were carrying on the business in the suit accommodation by constructing the structure, which was removed by the respondents. It is submitted that respondent No.l has specifically stated in his statement that he has objection in raising shade over the suit accommodation. This aspect of the .case has not been taken into consideration by the learned Courts below. It is submitted that no ground for eviction is made out under Section 12(l)(d) of the Act. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below be set aside. ( 6. This aspect of the .case has not been taken into consideration by the learned Courts below. It is submitted that no ground for eviction is made out under Section 12(l)(d) of the Act. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below be set aside. ( 6. ) Shri A.Siddiquee, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the suit for injunction was filed by the respondents in the year 1992 and the same was decreed in the year 2001. It is submitted that during pendency of the suit and thereafter no business was started by the appellants in the suit accommodation. Thus, the appellant No.l did not use the accommodation for business for the purpose of which accommodation was letted out to the appellants. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances no illegality has been committed by both the Courts below in passing the impugned judgment. Learned counsel submits that appeal filed by the appellants has no merits and the same be dismissed. ( 7. ) Chapter III of M.P.Accommodation Control Act deals with the eviction of tenants. Section 12(l)(d) of the Act reads as under:- "12. Restriction on eviction of tenants. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:- (d) that the accommodation has not been used without reasonable cause for which it was let, for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the filing of the suit for the recovery of possession thereof;" ( 8. ) To prove the case respondents have filed the documents Ex.P/1 to P/3. Ex.P/1 is the suit filed by the appellants on 16.3.92, which is numbered as Civil Suit No. 110-A/95. Ex.P/2 is the judgment in the said suit dated 1.4.2001 and Ex.P/ 3 is the decree passed in the said suit. Apart from this respondents have examined Bherusingh PW-1, Laxman Gawali PW-2 and Ajay Kumar PW-3, while the appellants have filed the documents Ex.D/1 to D/16. Ex.D/1 is the statement of Nandkishore, who is landlord in Civil Suit No.110-A/95. Ex.P/2 is the judgment in the said suit dated 1.4.2001 and Ex.P/ 3 is the decree passed in the said suit. Apart from this respondents have examined Bherusingh PW-1, Laxman Gawali PW-2 and Ajay Kumar PW-3, while the appellants have filed the documents Ex.D/1 to D/16. Ex.D/1 is the statement of Nandkishore, who is landlord in Civil Suit No.110-A/95. Ex.D/2 is the judgment dated 29.1.2002 passed by the District Judge, Shajapur in Civil Appeal No.28-A/ 2001, whereby the judgment dated 30.4.2001 passed in Civil Suit No.110-A/95 was maintained. Ex.D/3 is the decree passed in the said suit. Ex.D/4 to D/7 are the copies of the complaints, which were lodged by appellant No.l on 14.10.92, 1.2.94, 14.9.96 and 6.1.97 in the concerned Police Station. Ex.D/9 and Ex.D/10 are the order dated 8.1.2004 and 06/07/2000 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 171/2000, whereby appeal filed by the respondents before this Court was admitted for final hearing. Ex.D/11 is the copy of the plaint dated 7.5.93 of Civil Suit N0.63-A/93, which was filed by the respondents against the appellants for eviction on the ground of genuine requirement. Ex.D/12 is the written statement filed by the appellants in Civil Suit No.63-A/93. Ex.D/I3 are the issues while Ex.D/14 is the judgment dated 15.11.99 passed in the said suit, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.l was decreed. Ex.D/15 is the certified copy of the decree passed in the said suit. Ex.D/16 is the copy of the judgment passed by Ist Addl.District Judge, Shajapur in Civil Appeal No. 55-A/99, whereby the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the decree of eviction was passed, was set aside. Ex.D/17 is the copy of the decree in the said suit. Apart from documentary evidence appellants examined himself as DW-1. ( 9. ) From perusal of the record it is evident that respondent No. 1 filed the suit for eviction on 07/05/93 against the appellants for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act. This Civil Suit was numbered as 63-A/93. In the said suit written statement was filed by the appellants, which is Ex.D/12 and is dated 25/11/93. The suit was frvtrrf on 15/11/99 which is evident from Ex.D/14 and in appeal the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 04/04/2000 which is evident from Ex.D/ 16. Against this judgment Second Appeal was filed before this Court which was numbered as SA. The suit was frvtrrf on 15/11/99 which is evident from Ex.D/14 and in appeal the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 04/04/2000 which is evident from Ex.D/ 16. Against this judgment Second Appeal was filed before this Court which was numbered as SA. No. 171/2000 and was dismissed on 01/04/09. Ex.P/1 is the suit filed by appellant Mazhar Khan which is dated 16/03/92 which was numbered as Civil Suit No.110-A/95. This suit was decreed on 30/04/01 and a decree of permanent injunction was passed against the respondents to the effect that no obstruction should be created by the respondents in the use and occupation of the appellants. Respondents were also restrained not to create obstruction in raising temporary structure by the appellant Mazhar Khan. ( 10. ) For obtaining decree under Section 12( 1 )(d) of the Act a landlord is required to prove that the suit accommodation has not been used by the tenant without reasonable cause for which it was let. A landlord seeking eviction under Clause (d) has only to satisfy the court that he has pleaded and proved the non-user of the accommodation for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of filing of the suit. If the plaintiff establishes his claim, the onus shifts on the tenant to establish that his default which rendered him liable to eviction was condonable by the court because of a "reasonable cause". It is not necessary for the landlord to plead that the non-user by tenant was "without reasonable cause". ( 11. ) In the present case sufficient evidence is on record by way of documentary evidence which goes to show that the appellants were not allowed to carry on their business in the suit accommodation and the appellants were constrained to approach the Court by way of filing of $uit in which the injunction was issued against the respondents whereby the respondents were directed not to create obstruction in the use of the accommodation by the appellant Mazhar Khan. Respondent No.2 Ajay Kishore has examined himself as PW/3 who has shown his ignorance about the litigation which took place between the parties earlier. Respondent No.2 Ajay Kishore has examined himself as PW/3 who has shown his ignorance about the litigation which took place between the parties earlier. Ex.D/1 is the statement of Nandkishore, which was recorded in the year 2001 and in para-14 of his statement it has been specifically stated by him that if the appellant No.l Mazhar Khan carries on his business on the suit accommodation by constructing the shade from his own expenses, then too, he is having the objection. ( 12. ) From perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Courts below it is evident that the learned Courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that the appellants are unable to carry on business in the suit accommodation with reasonable cause. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned Courts below were not justified in not considering the reasonable cause of the appellant No. 1 in not running the business in the suit accommodation due to malafide of the respondents who restrained the appellant No. 1 to run his business there from. This Court is also of the view that the learned Courts below were not justified in reading the statement of Nandkishore Ex.D/1 who has stated that he has an objection if the appellant No. 1 construct the shade in the suit accommodation and runs his business. This Court is also of the view that the learned. Courts below committed error in misreading the decree passed in Civil Suit No.110-A/95 whereby the injunction was granted against the respondents. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby decree of eviction was passed against the appellants under Section 12(l)(d) of the Act is set aside. ( 13. ) With the aforesaid observation, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules. Appeal allowed.