ORDER N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by judgment dated 2.4.2009 passed by V. Addl. District Judge, Khargone, West Nimar in Civil Appeal N0.6-A/ 2009, whereby judgment dated 10.2.2006 passed by Addl. Civil Judge Class II, Khargone, West Nimar in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2005, whereby suit filed by the Respondents against the Appellant for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Act (which shall be referred to as the Act) was decreed on the ground under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act was maintained, present appeal has been filed. 2. The appeal was admitted for hearing by this Court on 19.7.2010 on the following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Courts below committed error in decreeing the suit against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act ? 2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Courts below committed error in holding that being a tenant Appellant is no one to object the partition which has taken place between Respondent and his brother ? 3. Short facts of the case are that Respondent filed a suit for eviction on 1.9.2001 alleging that Respondents are real brother and sons of Kanhaiyalal. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the shop situated at M.G. Road, Khargone having width of 6 feet and length of 22 feet. It was alleged that eight months before filing of the suit partition has taken place between the Respondent No. 1 and his brothers and as per the partition suit shop has come into the share of Respondent No. 1 in which Appellant is in occupation as tenant @ Rs. 30/- per month w.e.f. 1.5.70 from the father of Respondent No. 1. It was alleged that Appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2000, which was not paid inspite of notice of demand. It was alleged that after death of father of Respondent No. 1 suit was filed by Respondent No. 1 alongwith other Respondents, which was numbered as Civil Suit No. 118-A/80 and was pending in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Khargone and was dismissed against which appeals were filed and Second Appeal was numbered as S.A. No. 405/85 and was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.2.86. It was alleged that in the said proceedings the Appellant was held as tenant of Respondents. It was alleged that at the time of filing of the earlier suit Respondent and his brothers, who are Respondents herein were living jointly but eight months before filing of the suit partition has taken place. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 requires suit accommodation bonafidely for carrying on business of sweet shop. It was alleged that for this purpose Respondent No. 1 is having no alternative suitable accommodation. It is prayed that decree of eviction be passed against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act. The suit was contested by the Appellant by filing the written statement, wherein all the plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that any partition has taken place between the parties and Respondent No. 1 was the sole owner of the property. It was alleged that after the death of Kanhiyalal all the Respondents are the owners of the suit property, who are living jointly. It was denied that Appellant was in default of payment of rent. It was also denied that Respondent No. 1 requires the suit accommodation for carrying on the business. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 is in occupation of one more shop having the same area adjoining to the suit shop, which is in occupation of Respondent No. 1. It was alleged that there is one more shop towards the western side of the suit shop, which belongs to the joint family of Respondent No. 1 from where Respondent No. 1 is carrying on the business. It was also alleged that Respondent No. 1 is having one shop at Pragati Complex. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. The written statement was also filed by the Respondents No. 2 to 5, wherein plaint allegations were not disputed. It was also not disputed that in the partition between the Respondents the suit accommodation has come into the share of Respondent No. 1. On the basis of pleadings of the parties trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and decreed the suit under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, which was maintained by dismissing the appeal, hence this appeal. 4. Shri D.S. Kale, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Shri D.S. Kale, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be dismissed. Learned Counsel submits that in fact no partition has taken place between the Respondent and a trick was played that oral partition has taken place as the Respondents lost the battle in first round of litigation. Learned Counsel submits that to prove the case Appellant has examined two witnesses Ayajuddin PW-2 and Ajay Bhat PW-3. Learned Counsel submits that PW-3 Ajay Bhat submits in his statement that at the time when oral partition took place he was only the person outside the family. While in the statement of PW-2 Ayajuddin, it has come that at the time of partition both of them were present. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Courts below committed error in holding that partition has taken place between the members of the family. Learned Counsel submits that Appellant is having right to challenge the partition. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of Apex Court in the matter of S.K. Sattar SK. Mohd. Choudhari v. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate reported in (1996) 6 SCC 373 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed that tenancy cannot be split up either in estate or in rent or any other obligation by unilateral act of one of the co-owners. It will be open to the tenant to show that the partition was not bona fide and was a sham transaction to overcome the rigours of Rent Control Laws which protected eviction of the tenants except on specified grounds set out in the relevant statute. 5. Learned Counsel further submits that ample evidence is on record to show that the Respondent No. 1 is having other suitable accommodation. Learned Counsel further submits that the fact that partition was reduced in writing was admitted by Respondent No. 1 but that memorandum was also not brought before the Court. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse and deserves to be set aside. 6. Shri Lokesh Mehta, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, submits that findings recorded by the learned Courts below are based on due appreciation of evidence, which requires no interference. Learned Counsel submits that Respondents are real brothers. 6. Shri Lokesh Mehta, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, submits that findings recorded by the learned Courts below are based on due appreciation of evidence, which requires no interference. Learned Counsel submits that Respondents are real brothers. It is submitted that as per the partition, which took place between the Respondents, Respondents No. 2 and 4 did not get any share and they voluntarily relinquished their respective shares as they were in service while each of the Respondents No. 1, 3 and 5 got one shop. It is submitted that the shop, which is in occupation of Appellant fall into the share of Respondent No. 1. It is submitted that Respondents No. 2 to 5 has submitted the written statement, wherein this fact has not been disputed that oral partition has taken place between the parties. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Courts below committed no error in holding that partition took place between the parties and Respondent No. 1 is the sole owner of the property. It is further submitted that from the evidence aduced by the Respondent No. 1 it is amply proved that Respondent No. 1 requires the suit accommodation bonafidely. It is submitted that findings relating to bonafide requirement are concurrent findings of fact, which requires no interference. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 7. From perusal of the record it is evident that to prove the case Respondent No. 1 has examined himself as PW-1, Ayajuddin PW-2 and Ajay Bhat PW-3. While the Appellant has submitted documentary evidence Ex.D/1, which is Sahmatipatra, which is executed by Ramesh Chandra Respondent No. 2 and has also examined himself as DW-1. So far as the partition has taken place or not it is always open to the tenant to show that partition was not bonafide and was a sham transaction to overcome the rigours of rent control laws, which protected eviction of the tenants except on specified grounds set out in the relevant statute as is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of S.K. Sattar (supra). In the said judgment it is also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that all the co-owners or co-lessors agree among themselves and split by partition the demised property by metes and bounds and come to have definite, positive and identifiable shares in that property, they become separate individual owners of each severed portion and can deal with that portion as also the tenant thereof as individual owner/lessor. The right of joint lessors contemplated by Section 109 comes to be possessed by each of them separately and independently. There is no right in the tenant to prevent the joint owners or co-lessors from partitioning the tenanted accommodation among themselves. It was also observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that whether the premises, which is in occupation of a tenant, shall be retained jointly by all the lessors or they would partition it among themselves, is the exclusive right of the lessor to which no objection can be taken by the tenant, particularly where the tenant knew from the very beginning that the property was jointly owned by several persons and that, even if he was being dealt with by only one of them on behalf of the whole body of the lessors, he cannot object to the transfer of any portion of the property in favour of a third person by one of the owners or to the partition of the property. In the present case it is not a unilateral act of Respondent No. 1 on the basis of which it can be held that Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the suit accommodation. On the contrary all the five brothers, who are Respondents, has divided the property between themselves. Respondents No. 2 to 5 has filed written statement, wherein they have not disputed the partition. In the said oral partition Respondents No. 2 and 4 did not get any property and they have also agreed in their written statement for the said partition. The admissions made by Respondents No. 2 and 4 in their written statement is self harming and there is no reason to disbelieve it. No prudent co-lessor will relinquish his rights in the joint family property in which suit accommodation is situated, just to get rid of from a tenant. The admissions made by Respondents No. 2 and 4 in their written statement is self harming and there is no reason to disbelieve it. No prudent co-lessor will relinquish his rights in the joint family property in which suit accommodation is situated, just to get rid of from a tenant. In the facts and circumstances of the case even if there are some discrepancies regarding the alleged oral partition, then too, it cannot be said that the alleged partition is a sham transaction to come out from the rigour of Accommodation Control Act. 8. So far as bona fide requirement of the Respondent is concerned, Respondent No. 1 has stated that he wants to start business of sweet-meat from the suit shop. It was alleged that business of sweet-meat is the family business of Respondent No. 1. In his cross-examination Respondent No. 1 has further stated that Respondent No. 1 is not having any other business. He has further stated that his brother Suresh is also in the trade of sweet-meat. Both the Courts below after due appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion that the need of Respondent No. 1 is bonafide. So far as alternative accommodation is concerned, Appellant himself has admitted in para 21 of his cross-examination that the shop towards eastern side of the suit shop, which Was closed since long time was started before 2-3 years. He has also admitted that this shop has been started by Suresh Respondent No. 3. He has also admitted that it is the son of Respondent No. 3, who is sitting on the shop. He has further stated that he has not produced any record about other alternative shops situated at Tagore Park near Maharashtra Bank. He has also admitted that Respondent No. 1 is having no shop at Pragati Complex. He has further stated that in the written statement Respondent No. 1 has stated that Respondent No. 1 is having shop at Pragati Complex and that part of the written statement is not correct. 9. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that learned Courts below committed no error in decreeing the suit filed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act. 9. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that learned Courts below committed no error in decreeing the suit filed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act. This Court is also of the view that the objection that the alleged partition is sham transaction, can be raised by the tenant but the objection has to be decided on the basis of evidence on record. In this case this Court is of the view that learned Courts below committed no error in holding that partition has taken place between the parties and suit shop has fell into the share of Respondent No. 1. In view of this appeal stands dismissed. However, the order of eviction shall not be executable on or before 31.7.2011 on the condition that the Appellant herein files an undertaking before the learned trial Court within six weeks to the following effect namely: 1) That, the Appellant herein shall not induct any other person in the suit premises and shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to the Respondent/landlord on or before the date mentioned hereinabove. 2) That, the Appellant herein shall pay to the Respondent/ landlord arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today and shall pay to the Respondent/landlord future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before the 10th day of every month. 10. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.