JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18-2-2009 passed by XIII ADJ, Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 36/2008 whereby the judgment and decree dated 19-8-2008, passed by I Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore in Civil Suit No. 49-A/2006 whereby decree of eviction was passed against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act"), was maintained the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that suit for eviction was filed by the Respondent on 17-8-2004 alleging that the Respondent is owner of house bearing No. 1-C, Subhash Nagar, Indore. It was alleged that Appellant is in occupation of a shop situated on the ground floor of the said house measuring 10 x 22 ft. as tenant ' Rs. 1,050/- per month. It was alleged that Appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-9-2002 which has not been paid in spite of notice of demand. Further case of the Respondent was that the Respondent is heart patient and is in the employment with Municipal Corporation and is going to retire shortly. It was alleged that Respondent requires the suit shop bona fidely for carrying on the business of Kirana. It was alleged that need of the Respondent is based on bona fides. Further case of the Respondent was that the Respondent is having no other suitable alternative accommodation to fulfil the requirement. It was prayed that decree of eviction be passed against the Appellant. During pendency of suit plaint was amended on 23-8-2006 wherein it was alleged that Respondent has retired on 30-4-2006 and Respondent has also been operated at C.H.L. Apollo Hospital, Indore for his heart on 14-6-2006. It was alleged that Respondent requires the suit accommodation for carrying on the business. The suit was contested by the Appellant by filing written statement wherein the tenancy was not disputed, however, it was denied that Respondent requires the suit accommodation for carrying on business. It was denied that Respondent is having no other suitable alternative accommodation to meet out the requirement. It was alleged that initially tenancy was in the shop measuring 10 x 10 ft. It was alleged that right from beginning the rent was fixed ' Rs. 250/- per month vide rent note dated 30-8-1983. It was alleged that initially a sum Rs. 5,000/- was deposited by the Appellant. It was alleged that initially tenancy was in the shop measuring 10 x 10 ft. It was alleged that right from beginning the rent was fixed ' Rs. 250/- per month vide rent note dated 30-8-1983. It was alleged that initially a sum Rs. 5,000/- was deposited by the Appellant. Further case of the Appellant was that a piece of land which was lying vacant in front of shop of the Appellant was included in the shop and the construction was raised by the Appellant with the consent of Respondent. It was alleged that a some of Rs. 40,000/- was invested by the Appellant and the construction was completed by the Appellant in the year 1996 and new rent note was executed by the Appellant on 20-7-1996 wherein the amount spent by the Appellant was mentioned as security which was Rs. 40,000/-. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit against which an appeal was filed by the Appellant which was also dismissed, hence this appeal. 3-4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that Respondent is not an unemployed person, on the contrary Respondent is retired from Municipal Corporation and is getting handsome amount of pension. It is submitted that apart from this, Respondent has also got the amount of arrears on revised pay scale. It is submitted that Respondent was having no need on the date when the suit was filed as the Respondent was in the employment. It is submitted that no suit could have been filed for future need as no cause of action was accrued on the date of filing of the suit. It is submitted that Respondent was operated for heart disease. It is submitted that Respondent is also suffering with paralysis. It is submitted that keeping in view the old age and sickness it is not expected from the Respondent to start a business at the fag end of the journey of his life. It is submitted that there is another shop which is adjacent to the residence of Respondent which is more convenient from where the alleged requirement could have been fulfilled. It is submitted that there is another shop which is adjacent to the residence of Respondent which is more convenient from where the alleged requirement could have been fulfilled. It is submitted that during pendency of appeal before the learned Appellate Court Appellant moved an application for amendment of pleadings but without holding any inquiry the same was dismissed. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by the Appellant be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by learned Courts below whereby decree of eviction has been passed be set aside. 5. Mr. S. L. Ahiwasi, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that right from beginning case of the Respondent was that the Respondent requires the suit accommodation for carrying on the business of Kirana. It is submitted that the suit was filed by the Respondent just before his retirement. It is submitted that since the need of Respondent was definite, therefore, the suit filed by the Respondent was maintainable for his future need. It is submitted that right from beginning Respondent has stated that he was operated and is suffering with heart disease and also by making an amendment in plaint. It was made clear that Respondent was operated for his heart disease. It is submitted that at present Respondent is aged 65 years and is competent to carry on the business. It is submitted that Respondent is present in Court. It is submitted that initially suit was filed on the ground of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act in which certain facts relating to the eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act were also pleaded but after his retirement suit was amended when need was actually accrued. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Munshi Khan v. Mayadevi :: AIR 1993 M.P. 98 : 1993 MPLJ 933 wherein ground of bona fide need came into existence during pendency of suit, this Court held that landlord can be allowed to amend the plaint and claim relief of eviction on such ground. So far as suitability of alternative accommodation is concerned, it is submitted that Appellant is no one to suggest another accommodation which is not in occupation of the Respondent. So far as suitability of alternative accommodation is concerned, it is submitted that Appellant is no one to suggest another accommodation which is not in occupation of the Respondent. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary: AIR 2000 SC 534 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that landlord is the best judge and has complete freedom in the matter. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the Appellant be dismissed. 6. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that right from beginning the suit was filed by the Respondent for eviction on the ground of genuine requirement. So far as the accommodation which has been suggested by Appellant as alternative accommodation is concerned, the accommodation is not in possession of Respondent. In view of the law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court it is the choice of landlord as he is the best judge to select the place from where he wants to carry on business and Appellant is no one to suggest the Respondent to get other accommodation vacated for his need. So far as sickness and old age of Respondent is concerned, Respondent is present in Court, this Court is of the opinion that claim of the Respondent cannot be dismissed on the ground that Respondent is an old and sick man. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, hence, the appeal stands dismissed. However, since as per agreement there is a security amount of Rs. 40,000/- which Appellant is entitled to get back upon vacating the suit accommodation, therefore, the decree shall not be executable unless and until Respondent deposits a sum of Rs. 75,000/- which includes the deposit of Rs. 40,000/- as security and the compensation as per Section 12(6) of the Act. 40,000/- which Appellant is entitled to get back upon vacating the suit accommodation, therefore, the decree shall not be executable unless and until Respondent deposits a sum of Rs. 75,000/- which includes the deposit of Rs. 40,000/- as security and the compensation as per Section 12(6) of the Act. Since the Appellant is in occupation of accommodation, therefore, to save the Appellant from the peril of eviction, it is made clear that the decree passed by learned Court below against the Appellant shall be executable after lapse of six months, provided that Appellant furnishes an undertaking on affidavit within a period of four weeks to the effect that Appellant shall vacate the suit accommodation on or before 31-12-2010 peacefully and shall also comply with the money part of the decree and current rent within the said period as mentioned above, failing which the decree shall be executed forthwith. C. C. as per rules.