JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of SA. No. 348/2010 as in both the appeals judgment under challenge is dated 17/12/09 passed by XX Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Appeal No. 25/09 whereby the judgment dated 29/07/09 passed by VII Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No. 333-A/08 whereby decree of eviction was passed against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as the "Act") and the suit filed by the Respondent under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act was dismissed, was maintained, the present appeals have been filed. 2. Both the appeals were admitted for final hearing by this Court on 23/06/10 on the following substantial question of law: S.A. No. 61/10- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Courts below committed error in passing the decree against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act?" S.A. No. 348/10- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Courts below committed error in not passing the decree against the Appellant under Section of M.P. Accommodation Control Act? 3. Short facts of the case are that the Respondent filed a suit for eviction on 02/04/07 alleging that the Respondent is owner of suit accommodation bearing house No. 32 situated at Bombay Bazar, Indore. It was alleged that Respondent is owner of the suit accommodation vide registered partition deed dated 20/09/89. It was alleged that Respondent is owner of a piece of property which is measuring 16'. 6" X 11'.6". It was alleged that Appellant is in occupation of half of the property which is suit accommodation and is 8 feet in width as tenant @ Rs. 50/- per month. It was alleged that the nature of tenancy is non-residential. Further case of Respondent was that the Appellant is not regular in payment of rent. It was alleged that the Appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01/09/89 and the same is not paid inspie of notice of demand dated 20/11/06. Further case of Respondent was that the Respondent requires the suit accommodation bonafidely for carrying on the business of manufacturing of bakery items i.e. toast, double-roti etc. It was alleged that property which is in occupation of Respondent is equal to the suit accommodation and is adjoining from where Respondent is carrying on the business of bakery items. Further case of Respondent was that the Respondent requires the suit accommodation bonafidely for carrying on the business of manufacturing of bakery items i.e. toast, double-roti etc. It was alleged that property which is in occupation of Respondent is equal to the suit accommodation and is adjoining from where Respondent is carrying on the business of bakery items. In the suit it was further alleged that presently Respondent is bringing bakery items from the market and sales it from the adjoining shop of suit accommodation, which is in occupation of Respondent. It was alleged that now the Respondent wants to start the business of manufacturing of bakery items for which Respondent is not having sufficient accommodation. On the basis of these allegations it was prayed that the suit filed by the Respondent be allowed and decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act be passed. 4. The suit was contested by the Appellant by filing written statement, wherein it was alleged that the Respondent is in occupation of the suit accommodation as tenant. It was alleged that the Appellant was inducted by the father of Respondent and at that time rent was Rs. 15/- per month. It was denied that the Appellant is tenant @ Rs. 50/- per month. On the contrary it was alleged that the tenancy of the Appellant is @ Rs. 15/- per month. In the written statement it was not disputed that the notice of demand was received by the Appellant, which was duly replied wherein it was alleged that the tenancy of the Appellant was @ Rs. 15/- per month. Appellant has also paid the rent up to October, 2006. It was denied that the Respondent requires the suit accommodation bonafidely. It was also denied that the Respondent is having no other alternative accommodation for fulfilling his need. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. On the basis of pleadings of parties learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the Respondent under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, however, suit filed under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act was dismissed. Against which an appeal was filed by the Appellant in which cross-objections were filed by the Respondent. The appeal filed by the Appellant as well cross-objection filed by the Respondent were also dismissed, against which present appeals have been filed. 6. Against which an appeal was filed by the Appellant in which cross-objections were filed by the Respondent. The appeal filed by the Appellant as well cross-objection filed by the Respondent were also dismissed, against which present appeals have been filed. 6. Smt. Rekha Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the Appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that right from beginning case of Respondent was that the tenancy of the Appellant is @ Rs. 15/-per month. It is submitted that in the reply of notice which was prior to filing of the suit it was made clear that the tenancy of the Appellant is of Rs. 15/- per month and the rent has already been paid up to October, 2006. It is submitted that in the notice issued by the Respondent whereby tenancy was terminated it was no where stated that Appellant is in arrears for which period. Learned Counsel submits that in fact notice itself does not constitute a ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. It is submitted that after filing of suit the dispute regarding rate of rent and also arrears of rent was raised by the Appellant in the written statement and the same was decided by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30/08/07 whereby rate of rent was fixed @, Rs. 15/- per month and 15 days time was given to the Appellant to deposit the legally recoverable arrears of rent. It is submitted that in compliance of that rent was duly deposited by the Appellant initially and also subsequently. It is submitted that there was delay in depositing the rent initially in compliance of the order dated 30/08/07 whereby provisional rent was fixed and two weeks time was granted for compliance. Learned Counsel submits that the arrears ought to have been deposited within two weeks w.e.f. 30/08/07 but the same was deposited on 20/09/07. Learned Counsel submits that again the default was for the month of October, 2007, as the same was deposited on 17/11/07 and also for the month of May, 2008, which was deposited on 23/06/08 for which application was filed for condonation of delay which was wrongly dismissed by the learned trial Court. Learned Counsel submits that again the default was for the month of October, 2007, as the same was deposited on 17/11/07 and also for the month of May, 2008, which was deposited on 23/06/08 for which application was filed for condonation of delay which was wrongly dismissed by the learned trial Court. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in passing the decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act against the Appellant. It is submitted that since there was dispute regarding rate of rent right from beginning and ultimately order was passed in favour of Appellant and immediately after passing of the order rent was deposited by the Appellant, therefore, there was no justification on the part of learned Courts below in holding that the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act is made out. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case where Appellant has regularly deposited the rent, learned Courts below committed error in rejecting the application filed by the Appellant for condonation of delay on two occasion. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Dilip Kumar v. Bhaiyalal 1989 MPACJ 84 wherein this Court has held that operation of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 is arrested till the provisional rent is not fixed. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Imdad Ali v. Keshav Chand 2003 (11) MPACJ 277 wherein decree of eviction was denied under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act by giving benefit of Section 12(3) of the Act. On the strength of aforesaid decision it is submitted that appeal filed by the Appellant be allowed and the appeal filed by the Respondent be dismissed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 7. Mr. Anand Pathak, learned Counsel for Respondent submits that so far as S.A. No. 61/10 is concerned, after due appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court has passed the decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, which has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. It is submitted that to condone the delay is the discretion of the Court which has rightly been exercised by the learned Courts below in favour of Respondent, which requires no interference. It is submitted that to condone the delay is the discretion of the Court which has rightly been exercised by the learned Courts below in favour of Respondent, which requires no interference. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Kandhi Lal v. Abhilash Kumar 2008 (1) MPLJ 146 wherein this Court has held that while demanding the arrears of rent landlord is not required to be specified in the demand notice. It was further held that issuance of demand notice and its service on the tenant is sufficient. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Jamnalal v. Radheshyam (2000) 4 SCC 380 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 13(1) of the Act imposes twin obligations upon tenant facing eviction proceedings under Section 12(1) of the Act: (i) he must pay or deposit within one month of service of writ of summons, arrears due for any period in the past and up to the end of the month preceding the month in which payment is made, and (ii) he must pay or deposit future rent, month by month. It was further held that two obligations are independent of each other. Compliance with second is not dependent upon carrying out of the first. 8. So far as S.A. No. 348/10 is concerned, learned Counsel submits that both the Courts below committed error in dismissing the suit filed by the Respondent under Section of the Act. It is submitted that sufficient evidence was on record to show that the Respondent requires the suit accommodation for carrying on the business of manufacturing of bakery. It is submitted that the suit filed by the Respondent has been dismissed by both the Courts below on extraneous grounds such as inexperience of Respondent in the manufacturing business of bakery, short of funds etc. It is submitted that all these aspect can not be taken into consideration while examining the bonafide requirement. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Matadin S/o Datadin v. Manoramabai Ramlal Gattani 1997 (1) MPLJ 241 wherein this Court held that in a suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement for continuing his business, landlord is not required to prove "increase in business" and he cannot be non-suited on account of no evidence on that count. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Chandanmal v. Daryanamal 1982 MPWN, Note-58 wherein it was held that in a suit on the ground of genuine requirement proof of funds not necessary. On the strength of aforesaid position of law and the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Counsel submits that the appeal filed by the Respondent be allowed and the appeal filed by the Appellant be dismissed and while maintaining decree under Section 12(l)(a) of the Act decree be also passed under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act. 9. From perusal of the record it is evident that to prove the case Respondent has filed the documents Ex.P/1 which is registered partition deed, Ex.P 2 is notice of demand dated 20/11/06 and Ex.P 3 is reply of notice. Apart from documentary evidence, Respondent has examined himself as P.W. 1, Abdul Salam P.W. 2 and Abdul Wahid P.W. 3. While Appellant has examined himself as D.W. 1 and Faruk D.W. 2. 10. So far as decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act is concerned, in the suit it was alleged that the Appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01/09/89 and the notice of demand is dated 20/11/06. There is nothing on record to show that when the notice was served. However, it is not disputed that the notice was duly served as the same was replied on 28/11/06 vide Ex.P 3. Suit was filed on 02/04/07. 11. It is not in dispute that no rent was tendered by the Appellant at any point of time. However, in the reply notice dispute was raised by the Appellant that the tenancy is @ Rs. 15/- per month and the rent has been paid up to October, 2006. The suit which was filed on 02/04/07 came up for hearing before the learned trial Court on 11/04/07 and vide order dated 11/04/07 summons were issued by the learned trial Court for appearance on 17/05/07. Notices were duly served on the Appellant on 06/05/07 and appearance was also made by the Appellant on 17/05/07, while written statement was filed on 04/07/07, wherein dispute was raised regarding arrears of rent and also rate of rent, which was decided by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30/08/07. Notices were duly served on the Appellant on 06/05/07 and appearance was also made by the Appellant on 17/05/07, while written statement was filed on 04/07/07, wherein dispute was raised regarding arrears of rent and also rate of rent, which was decided by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30/08/07. Since the notice was duly served on the Appellant on 06/05/07, therefore, as per Section 13(1) of the Act it was the duty of the Appellant to deposit the arrears of rent as claimed within a period of one month. Appellant could have avoided to deposit the arrears of rent by raising dispute regarding rate of rent and also regarding arrears of rent within a period of one month from 06/05/07. Thus, the dispute ought to have been raised by the Appellant on or before 15/06/07 as it was summer vacation up to 14/06/07, but no dispute was raised by the Appellant by that point of time. The dispute was raised by the Appellant for the first time before the Court on 04/07/07. Since the arrears of rent was not deposited within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons of the Court, thus default was committed by the Appellant in initial deposit of rent. 12. Apart from this, Appellant also committed default in payment of rent for October, 2007 and May, 2008. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is crystal clear that Appellant has committed default in payment of arrears of rent within one month from the date of the receipt of summons. Appellant further committed default in payment of arrears of rent within the time granted by the learned Trial Court while passing the provisional order. In the present case, not only Appellant has committed default in payment of rent on two occasions for which application for condonation of delay was filed, which was dismissed, but also Appellant committed error in depositing initial arrears of rent, for which there is no application for condonation of delay till to this date. Similarly the application for condonation of delay which was filed by the Appellant before the learned trial Court and also before the learned Appellate Court was dismissed was a discretionary order. Similarly the application for condonation of delay which was filed by the Appellant before the learned trial Court and also before the learned Appellate Court was dismissed was a discretionary order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below in passing the decree against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. 13. So far as refusal of decree under Section of the Act is concerned, undisputedly the suit accommodation is 11'X 6' and the Respondent is also having similar size of adjacent shop. It is also not in dispute that Respondent is carrying on his small business. The case of the Respondent was that the Respondent also wants to start the business of manufacturing of bakery items for which sufficient evidence was adduced by the Respondent, therefore, there was no justification on the part of learned Courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the Respondent on account of bonafide requirement. It is well settled that inexperience and want of funds are not relevant consideration for refusing the eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. There is no reason to disbelieve the Respondent. The only submission of the Respondent is that the Respondent wants to manufacture bakery items, while Respondent is in the trade of bakery business, which is similar in nature. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below so far as it relates to eviction of the Appellant under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act is concerned, are perverse and deserves to be set aside. In view of this, appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Respondent stands allowed holding that Respondent is also entitled for decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act in addition to Section of the Act. 15. In view of this, appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Respondent stands allowed holding that Respondent is also entitled for decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act in addition to Section of the Act. 15. Since in consequence the Appellant/Defendant has to vacate the suit accommodation, therefore, to save the Appellant/Defendant from the peril of eviction, one years' time is granted to the Appellant/Defendant to vacate the suit accommodation, provided Appellant/Defendant furnishes an undertaking within four weeks to the effect that Appellant/Defendant shall handover the vacant possession of the suit accommodation peacefully on or before 31/07/2011 to the Respondent/Plaintiff and shall also deposit the entire arrears of rent and cost, if any, within the period of four weeks and shall pay the rent regularly to the Respondent/ Plaintiff as per law. In case of failure on the part of Appellant/Defendant in submitting the undertaking or in complying the other conditions, Respondent/Plaintiff shall be at liberty to get the suit accommodation vacated forthwith. 16. With the aforesaid observations, both the appeals stand disposed of. Copy of this judgment be placed in the record of S.A. No. 348/10. No order as to costs.