JUDGMENT : The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision under section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereafter be referred as 'the Act') challenging the order dated 9-1 1-2010 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority (RCA), Katni in Case No. 02/A-90(7)/2005-06 allowing the application filed by landlord under section 23 -A of the Act directing ejectment from the suit accommodation. 2. The facts in brief are that the non-applicant has filed an application under section 23 -A of the Act seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide need of himself and his family for residential purpose. It is averred that the suit shop has been given for non-residential purpose on rent of Rs. 900/- per month. It is stated that at present his family members are residing at Bhopal and after eviction of the tenanted premises he wants to shift his family at Katni, therefore, the suit shop is required bona fide to which no other reasonably suitable accommodation in Katni is available, however, prayer is made to direct eviction of the tenant from the suit premises. 3. After seeking permission as contained under section 23-D of the Act, the tenant has filed reply and contested the claim. It is averred that the application is not maintainable before the Rent Controlling Authority. In addition thereto, it is said that the requirement is not bona fide and if eviction of the suit premises is directed it would cause prejudice to him, in the facts of the case. 4. The Rent Controlling Authority after recording the evidence found that the suit shop is required bona fide and the decree under section 23-A(a) and (b) [wrongly mentioned as section 23-D] was directed by the impugned order. 5. Shri Trivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referring the provisions of sub-clauses (a) and (b) of section 23-A of the Act has raised legal issue that the accommodation let out for residential purpose may get vacated for the same purpose to which it was let out, however, in the present case as per the averments made by the landlord in the application it is clear that the suit shop was let out for non-residential purpose. In such a case for the bona fide requirement of residential purpose suit shop let out to tenant for non-residential purpose cannot be ordered to be evicted. In such a case for the bona fide requirement of residential purpose suit shop let out to tenant for non-residential purpose cannot be ordered to be evicted. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Gopal Dass Verma vs. Dr. S K. Bhardwaj and another, AIR 1963 SC 337 and also the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Devi Gupta vs. Smt. Tara Devi Dubey, reported in 2007(4) MPHT 54 (CG). In view of the foregoing it is urged that the order passed by the Rent Controlling authority directing eviction of non-residential accommodation for residential purpose is not permissible under the law. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord contends in support of the findings so recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority and it is urged that the suit shop is required bona fide by the landlord for his own residence as well as of his family on vacation by constructing a house thereon. In such circumstances used of the house can be changed after its vacation, therefore, the Rent Controlling Authority has not committed any error in passing the order impugned. 7. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and looking to the controversy involved in the present case it is required to take note that M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 provides regulation and control of letting and rent accommodation, expediting trial of eviction cases filed on the ground of "bona fide" requirement including certain categories of landlords and for other connected incidental matters. Thus the definition of "accommodation" which reads as thus is required to be taken note of: "2. Thus the definition of "accommodation" which reads as thus is required to be taken note of: "2. (a) "accommodation" means any building or part of a building, whether residential or non-residential and includes, - (i) any land which is not being used for agricultural purposes; (ii) garden, grounds, garages and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building or part of the building; (iii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof; (iv) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of building." On going through the aforesaid it is apparent that accommodation residential or non-residential in any building or part of it, includes the land not used for agricultural purposes, garden, grounds, garages and out-houses. It further includes fittings affixed to such building and furniture supplied by the landlord. 8. In Chapter III as per section 12 certain restrictions on eviction of tenants have been specified whereby the suit for eviction from any accommodation may be brought on the grounds as specified under section 12(1)(a) to 12(1)(p) if allegedly available against the tenant to the landlord. The said Chapter is having no application to the special category of the landlord, but the landlords fall other than special category may file a suit of eviction on the ground of bona fide need and also on other grounds. The eviction of accommodation on the ground of bona fide need has been specified in section 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(f) of the Act for residential and non-residential purposes. The eviction of accommodation on the ground of bona fide need has been specified in section 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(f) of the Act for residential and non-residential purposes. The language of the aforesaid section is also required to be taken note of because it is pari materia to section 23-A(a) and (b), however it is reproduced as under :- "(e) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned; (f) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned." 9. Chapter III-A was inserted by M. P. Act No. 27 of 1983 wherein the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement has been specified to the landlords fall within special category. Section 23-J of the Act was inserted by M. P. Act No. 7 of 1985 classifying the 'landlords' come within definition of special category. It is not in dispute that the non-applicant falls within the special category of the landlord being retired employee of the Government as per section 23-J(i) of the Act, however, he can maintain the application under section 23-A of the Act seeking eviction of accommodation on the ground of bona fide need of himself or for any member of his family, or for any person for whose benefit, the accommodation is required. It has been specified that on filing an application it would be treated as a plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the grounds mentioned under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of section 23-A of the Act for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the accommodation. It has been specified that on filing an application it would be treated as a plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the grounds mentioned under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of section 23-A of the Act for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the accommodation. Sub-clause (a)-of section 23-A deals with bona fide need for residential purpose, similarly sub-clause (b) deals with bona fide need for non-residential. The aforesaid provisions being relevant are reproduced as under :- "(a) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required "bona fide" by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, or for any person for whose benefit, the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. Explanation. - For the purposes of this clause, "accommodation let for residential purposes" includes - (i) any accommodation which having been let for use as a residence is without the express consent of the landlord, used wholly or partly for any non-residential purpose; (ii) any accommodation which has not been let under an express provision of contract for non-residential purpose; (b) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required "bona fide" by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned : Provided that where a person who is a landlord has acquired any accommodation or any interest therein by transfer, no application for eviction of tenant of such accommodation shall be maintainable at the instance of such person unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of such acquisition." 10. Bare reading of the aforesaid it is apparent that if the accommodation let for residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord or to the special category of landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, or for any person for whose benefit, the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town is available, on establishing the aforesaid the tenant may be evicted passing an order on the said ground. In Explanation phrase "accommodation let for residential purposes" has been clarified whereby it is clear that if the accommodation has been let out for residential purpose but without express consent of the landlord it is wholly or partly used for non-residential purpose would include within the purview of accommodation let for residential purpose. It has further been clarified that any accommodation which has not been let under an express provision of contract for non-residential purpose, then it shall fall within the aforesaid. Similarly for non-residential accommodation required bona fide to the landlord or special category of landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters for the accommodation let for non-residential purpose, then landlord who is the owner of the property and not possessing any other reasonably suitable accommodation in the city or town may take recourse therein. Bare reading of the scheme of the Act it appears that the landlord falls within special category or other landlords who want ejectment of the accommodation on the ground of bona fide need either residential or non-residential have to plead and prove that it was let for residential or non-residential purpose and required for the same purpose as the case may be. The language of either section 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(f) or section 23-A(a) and 23-A(b) makes it clear that the bona fide requirement of the accommodation if let for residential purpose must be of the residence and in case of let out for non-residential it should be for the non-residential purpose. Thus the requirement must be for the same purpose to which accommodation was let out. Thus the requirement must be for the same purpose to which accommodation was let out. The aforesaid intention further qualifies from the later part of the aforesaid section whereby it is clear that the requirement for which the accommodation was let out and to satisfy such requirement no other reasonably suitable residential or non-residential accommodation, as the case may be, of his own, should not be available in the city or town. Thus, it is clear that the suit for eviction of the accommodation let for residential purpose must be filed for bona fide requirement of residential purpose only and similarly in a suit for bona fide requirement of non-residential accommodation, it must be let for non-residential purpose. The landlord cannot file a suit on the ground of bona fide need of a residential premises let for non-residential purpose and similarly of non-residential premises let for residential purpose. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment in the case of Dr. Gopal Dass Verma (supra). In the said judgment the provisions of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 were taken note of wherein the definition of "premises" refers premises for "residence, commerce and for any other purpose". But in the M. P. Act while defining the "accommodation" "any other purpose" has not been included therein. Therefore, in the light of the provisions of M. P. Act it is required to be seen that for what purpose the accommodation is let out and the bona fide requirement of the landlord must be in consonance to the said purpose setting-forth in the pleading and brought evidence prove the same. 11. In the said context the reference of the observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Firm Panjumal Daulatmm vs. Sakhi Gopal, reported in 1977 MPLJ 762 = AIR 1977 SC 2077 may be taken note of, wherein the Court has observed as under :- "The residential portion is a part of the building and is an accommodation by definition. The non-residential portion is also a part of the building and is an accommodation by definition. The lease has been given for residential as well as non-residential purposes. The landlord is entitled to eviction of the residential portion if he makes out a bona fide residential requirement. The non-residential portion is also a part of the building and is an accommodation by definition. The lease has been given for residential as well as non-residential purposes. The landlord is entitled to eviction of the residential portion if he makes out a bona fide residential requirement. Likewise he is entitled to eviction of the non-residential portion which is an accommodation if he makes out a non-residential requirement. We have already found that the final Court of fact, affirmed by the High Court, has found in favour of the landlord regarding his residential as well as non-residential requirements. Therefore, nothing more can be done in defence of the tenant in the light of the present law." 12. On perusal of the pleadings of the application filed by the landlord under section 23-A of the Act it is clear that he is a retired employee from the post of Executive Engineer of Government of M. P. w.e.f. 31-10-2001. It is further said that he is the owner of the house situated in Azad Chowk Ward, Mirjapur Road, Katni. It is further said that the part portion of the said house let for non-residential purpose to the applicant as tenant and premises has been shown as A, B, C and D. In para 5 it has been specifically mentioned that the said shop is required bona fide for which delivery of vacant possession is sought for. In para 6 it has been stated that after retirement on 31-10-2001 request to vacate the suit shop was made with the tenant for the residence of his own and family which was not matured, except giving assurance. In para 7 it has been specifically said that he wants to reside at Katni along with his family to which no other reasonably suitable accommodation is available, however, the suit shop is required bona fide. In the evidence of the landlord aforesaid fact has been reiterated by him and his witnesses. Thus, looking to the pleading and evidence on record, whether an order under section 23-A(a) of the Act for eviction of the shop let out for non-residential purpose can be passed for bona fide need of landlord for residential purpose is a question for consideration. 13. Thus, looking to the pleading and evidence on record, whether an order under section 23-A(a) of the Act for eviction of the shop let out for non-residential purpose can be passed for bona fide need of landlord for residential purpose is a question for consideration. 13. On discussion of the legal position described hereinabove as well as the pleadings and evidence brought in the case it is crystal clear that the accommodation was let for non-residential purpose while bona fide requirement of the landlord and his family members has been pleaded for residential purpose. It is not a case of the landlord that the suit accommodation was let for residential purpose and without his consent it has been used wholly or partly for non-residential purpose. It is also not a case of the landlord that the accommodation has not been let under an express provision of contract for non-residential purpose. Therefore, the purpose to which the accommodation was let out may be vacated for the same purpose on proving bona fide requirement commensurate to purpose of tenancy. Thus the bona fide requirement set forth in the suit is residential one though accommodation was let out for non-residential purpose as per the pleadings and evidence. However, decree of eviction cannot be directed showing the bona fide need of the landlord of non-residential premises for residential purpose. As per the intention of the Legislature which is reflected from the language of section 12(1)(e) and (f) and also section 23-A(a) and (b) of the Act the predominant purpose to which the accommodation was let out the bona fide requirement of the landlord must be for the same purpose to get decree of eviction. If the accommodation is let for non-residential purpose and the bona fide requirement has been shown for residential purpose, the decree of eviction cannot be directed. Similarly, if the accommodation is let for residential purpose and the bona fide requirement has been shown for non-residential purpose, the decree of eviction cannot be passed. The Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Devi Gupta (supra) has also explained the similar proposition of law in the context of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act referring the provisions of section 12(1)(e) and (f). 14. The Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Devi Gupta (supra) has also explained the similar proposition of law in the context of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act referring the provisions of section 12(1)(e) and (f). 14. In view of the foregoing, in the considered opinion of this Court, impugned order dated 9-11-2010 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Katni directing eviction of the non-residential accommodation for residential purpose stands set aside allowing the revision. It is made clear here that if the landlord wants to file an application projecting the bona need for non-residential purpose, then this order would not create any impediment to the subsequent proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties to bear their own costs. Revision allowed.