JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE unsuccessful defendant having lost from the learned First Appellate Court has assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent on the ground envisaged under Section 12 (1) (d) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. ( 2. ) LOOKING to the substantial question of law which has been framed, no exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to say that a suit for eviction on several grounds envisaged under Section 12 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") mentioned in the plaint including a ground under Section 12 (1) (d) of the Act, has been filed against the appellant-defendant. The defendant (appellants) by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments and pleaded that no ground is made out and indeed the real intention of the plaintiff is to get the suit accommodation any how vacated. ( 3. ) THE learned Trial Court framed the necessary issued and after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the suit on all the grounds. ( 4. ) THE first appeal which was filed by plaintiff has been partly allowed and except the ground envisaged under Section 12 (1) (d) of the Act, on other grounds the appeal was dismissed. In this manner, this second appeal has been filed by the defendant- tenant which has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law :- "Whether the learned First Appellate Court erred in substantial error of law in decreeing the suit of plaintiff under Section 12 (1) (d) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, without even discussing the evidence of defendant and her witnesses and disbelieving it ?" ( 5. ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiff on all the grounds, however, learned First Appellate Court decreed the suit only on the ground envisaged under Section 12(1) (d) of the Act. Learned Counsel submits that finding of learned First Appellate Court decreeing the suit under this clause in Paras 24 and 25 of the impugned judgment. He submits that except the testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses, the evidence of defendant has not at all been discussed by the learned First Appellate Court. Learned Counsel submits that finding of learned First Appellate Court decreeing the suit under this clause in Paras 24 and 25 of the impugned judgment. He submits that except the testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses, the evidence of defendant has not at all been discussed by the learned First Appellate Court. Learned Counsel further submits that since the suit of plaintiff was dismissed on all the grounds and the first appeal was allowed, learned First Appellate Court was duty bound to discuss the evidence of the parties vis-a-vis to each other and after appreciating and marshalling it a definite conclusion should have been arrived at. Since the learned First Appellate Court has deviated from this well established procedure prescribed under the law, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, Shri Imtiyaz Husain, learned Counsel for the respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, lam of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed and the case is required to be sent back to the learned First Appellate Court. Regarding Substantial Question of Law framed : ( 7. ) IT be seen that the suit of eviction filed by plaintiff-respondent has been dismissed by learned Trial Court in toto. The first appeal was filed by plaintiff but the same has been allowed only on the ground envisaged under Section 12(1) (d) of the Act and other grounds were not found to be proven. On bare perusal of Paras 24 and 25 of the judgment passed by learned First Appellate Court it is seen that the testimony of plaintiff and his witness has been taken into consideration. Nowhere in the entire judgment the testimony of defendant or her witnesses has been considered. According to me, the learned First Appellate Court being a Final Court of fact was duty bound to discuss the evidence of parties and after marshalling it vis-a-vis to each other should have come to a conclusion that why particular set of evidence of particular party is believable and the evidence of another party is not believable. Since the learned First Appellate Court has totally deviated from this well established procedure prescribed under the law, I am of the view that impugned judgment cannot be allowed to remain stand. ( 8. Since the learned First Appellate Court has totally deviated from this well established procedure prescribed under the law, I am of the view that impugned judgment cannot be allowed to remain stand. ( 8. ) THE substantial question of law is thus answered that learned First Appellate Court erred in substantial error of law in decreeing the suit of plaintiff under Section 12 (1) (d) of the Act without marshalling the evidence and further without giving any finding that why the evidence of defendant and her witnesses is not reliable. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court is hereby set aside and the case is sent back to learned First Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh only on the ground under Section 12(1) (d) of the Act (because other grounds have not been found to be proved before the learned First Appellate Court) by marshalling the evidence of the parties vis-a-vis to each other. The parties are hereby directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 23-11-2011 and no separate notice shall be issued to either of the parties for this date. The learned First Appellate Court is also directed to decide the appeal as early as possible preferably within six months from 23-11-2011. ( 9. ) THE Registry is hereby directed to send the record to learned First Appellate Court posthaste So as to reach that Court much prior to the said date. ( 10. ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.