ORDER 1. This appeal has been submitted against the judgment and decree for eviction passed by the learned Lower Appellate Judge on the grounds under section 12 (1) (c) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was submitted before the Lower Appellate Court, which has not been considered while rendering impugned judgment and decree. This apart, it is contended that the shop occupied by the plaintiff's mother by virtue of judgment and decree dated 23.9.1988 is still in vacant condition and the suit could not have been dismissed on the ground of bona fide requirement. 3. Considered the submission and perused the record. 4. In paragraph No.4 of the written statement it has been specifically pleaded that Gallobai, mother of the plaintiff, instituted earlier a Civil Suit bearing No. 458A/88 and the shop was got vacated for the need of Niranjan Kumar. 5. On perusal, It is found that Civil Suit No. 459N88 was instituted by Gallohai for her own non-residential need and for the need of Niranjan Kumar. Specific suggestion was put to the plaintiff during his evidence in paragraph No. 14 of the statement. It is categorically stated that the said shop was got vacated by Gallobai for her own business. It has further been stated that the shop is in possession of the plaintiff's son namely Brij Kishore from the time of his mother. Thus, the alternative shop is not in vacant condition and consequently the defendants are not found to have been prejudiced on account of non-consideration of application under Order 41 Rule 27CPC. 6. Thus the finding with regard to bona fide need recorded by both the Courts below does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference in it. The findings so recorded are hereby confirmed. In view of this confirmation the other objection of the appellants with regard to section 12 (1) (c) will not give rise to substantial question of law. 7. In the result, appeal being devoid of substantial question of law is hereby dismissed summarily. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants prays for a reasonable time to vacate the suit premises. Prayer being reasonable is accepted. 7. In the result, appeal being devoid of substantial question of law is hereby dismissed summarily. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants prays for a reasonable time to vacate the suit premises. Prayer being reasonable is accepted. With a consensual order, it is directed that the decree for eviction shall be kept in abeyance upto 31st January, 2011 subject to fulfilment of the following conditions :(1) Defendants/appellants shall deposit the cost of litigation as awarded I by the Courts below within 15 days from today. (2) Defendants/appellants shall deposit the rent/mesne profits regularly in every month as per the mandate of section 13 (1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. (3) Defendants/appellants shall not sub-let or part with the possession of the suit shop in favour of anyone except the plaintiff and shall not create any third party interest in the suit shop. (4) Defendants/appellants shall deliver vacant possession of the suit shop in peaceful and voluntary manner latest by 31st January, 2011 and shall submit an undertaking in writing on affidavit before the Executing Court within two weeks from today that he will peacefully deriver the vacant possession as per this order. 9. It is made clear that in case of non-compliance of any of the terms stated herein above, the decree shall become executable immediately forthwith. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with aforesaid directions.