JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Appellant by Mr. Vinay Vijaywargiya, advocate. Respondent by Mr. Shahid Khan, advocate. Arguments heard finally, judgment dictated in Open Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8-7-2009 passed by II ADJ, (Fast Track), Ratlam in Civil Regular Appeal No. 17-A/2009 whereby the judgment and decree dated 22-2-2009 passed by III Civil Judge, Class-II, Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 40-A-2008 whereby decree of eviction was passed against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act"), was maintained, the present appeal has been filed. 2. This appeal was admitted by this Court for final hearing vide order dated 23-6-2010 on the following substantial question of law: Whether the learned Courts below committed error in passing decree against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, while admittedly the suit accommodation was let out for non-residential purpose? 3. Short facts of the case are that suit for eviction was filed by the Respondent against the Appellant on 15-2-2008 alleging that the Appellant is in occupation of an accommodation situated at Station Road, Namli, District-Ratlam as tenant ' Rs. 750/- per month from where the Appellant is running the Post Office. It was alleged that the Respondent requires the suit accommodation bona fidely for his residence. It was alleged that Respondent is having no other alternative arrangement to meet out his requirement. It was alleged that suit accommodation is in dilapidated condition. It was also alleged that Appellant is in arrears of rent. It was prayed that decree of eviction be passed under Section 12(1)(a) and (e) of the Act. The suit was contested by the Appellant by filing written statement wherein it was not disputed that Appellant is tenant ' Rs. 750/- per month, however, all other allegations made in the plaint were denied. In the written statement it was alleged that Appellant is intending to vacate the suit accommodation but in spite of making all the efforts Appellant is not getting the accommodation in the village of Namli from where business of Post Office can be conducted. It was alleged that Appellant has already written the letter to Collector, Ratlam and also Sarpanch, Village-Namli but in spite of that no accommodation is made available to the Appellant. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. It was alleged that Appellant has already written the letter to Collector, Ratlam and also Sarpanch, Village-Namli but in spite of that no accommodation is made available to the Appellant. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence the suit filed by the Respondent was decreed under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act against which an appeal was filed by the Appellant which was also dismissed, hence this appeal. 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 since need of the Respondent is for residential purpose while suit accommodation was let out to the Appellant for non-residential purpose, therefore, no decree of eviction could have been passed against the Appellant. 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. Shahid Khan, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that in the evidence it has come that the suit accommodation is being used for the residence of the employees of Post Office. It is submitted that Appellant has prayed time to vacate the accommodation. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the Appellant be dismissed. 6. In the matter of Nazir Ahmed v. Nannibai 1979 (II) MPLJ SN 195 (sic) wherein this Court has held that accommodation let out for residential purpose, eviction cannot be claimed for non-residential purpose. 7. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that suit has been filed for residential need while the accommodation was let out for non-residential purpose, therefore, in the opinion of this Court no decree of eviction could have been passed by learned Courts below under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act. It is made clear that in a case where the accommodation is let out for non-residential purpose, no decree of eviction can be passed for the need of residential purpose. In view of this, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below whereby decree of eviction was passed is set aside. In view of this, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below whereby decree of eviction was passed is set aside. However, since the Appellant is an undertaking of Union of India and stand of the Appellant itself is that the Appellant is in search of some accommodation and the moment accommodation is made available, the suit accommodation will be vacated, therefore, it is directed that Respondent will move an appropriate application wherein the Respondent will suggest the accommodation available in the Village-Namli from where Appellant can conduct the business of Post Office. In alternative the Respondent shall also be at liberty to pray for enhancement of rent. If such an application is filed, then, it is expected from the Appellant to consider it sympathetically. C.C. as per rules.