ORDER (Oral) 1. The appellants/defendants/tenants have filed this appeal under section 100 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.3.2010 passed by Xth ADJ (FTC), Gwalior in Civil Regular Appeal No. 8A/2010 whereby the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2000 passed by VIII Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior in COS No. 48A/08 decreeing the suit of the respondent No. 1 against the appellants for eviction from the disputed premises described in the plaint on the grounds available under section 12(1)(b)(c) and (f) of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short the Act) has been modified and by setting aside such decree of the trial Court till the extent of the ground of section 12(1)(b) and (c) the same was maintained and affirmed on the ground of section 12(1)(f) of the Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the respondent No. 1 herein filed the impugned suit for eviction against the appellants with respect of the disputed non-residential premises situated at Murar, Gwalior on the ground available under section 12(1)(a),(b),(c) and (f) of the Act. The terms of tenancy and the rate of rent is also stated in the plaint. The pleadings with respect of prior notice of termination of tenancy to the appellants is also made in the plaint. 3. In the written statement of the appellants, by denying the material averments of the plaint with respect of the aforesaid grounds of eviction, arrears of rent, the sub-tenancy, nuisance and bonafide genuine requirement for non-residential purpose of respendent No. 1 are denied. However, the terms and conditions of the tenancy are not disputed. In addition to it, with various averments, the suit of the plaintiff is said to be malafide and prayer for dismissal of the same was made. 4. After framing the issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same, the trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant on the ground of section 12(1)(b), (c) and (f) while the same was dismissed on the ground of section 12(1)(a) of the Act. 4. After framing the issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same, the trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant on the ground of section 12(1)(b), (c) and (f) while the same was dismissed on the ground of section 12(1)(a) of the Act. On filing the appeal by the appellants herein under section 96 of the CPC, on consideration, the same was allowed in part and the decree passed in favour of respondent No. 1 on the ground of section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Act was set aside while the decree of section 12(1)(f) was affirmed, on which, the appellants, have come to this Court with this appeal. 5. After taking me through the record of both the Courts below along with the impugned judgment and the proposed substantial question of law in the appeal memo, appellants counsel initially argued the case for near about 15 minutes but in view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below in favour of the respondent No. 1 on the ground of bonafide genuine requirement under section 12(1)(f) of the Act which being finding of fact could not be interfered under section 100 of the CPC, on making some query from the appellants counsel asking the special grounds for framing the substantial question of law, on which, initially he tried to convince the Court to frame the substantial question of law proposed in the appeal memo but ultimately, he restricted his arguments and prayed that on dismissing the appeal by holding that the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the aforesaid ground could not be interfered under section 100 of the CPC then taking into consideration that the appellants are running their business in the disputed shop since long and it would be very difficult for them to vacate the premises within a very short period of two months, therefore, to make alternate arrangement, they may be provided the period of three years to the appellants to vacate the premises on the reasonable terms and conditions under discretion of the Court and prayed to dispose of this appeal accordingly. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid arguments, in order to examine the position about involvement of any substantial question of law in the appeal, I have carefully gone through the record as well as the impugned judgments. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid arguments, in order to examine the position about involvement of any substantial question of law in the appeal, I have carefully gone through the record as well as the impugned judgments. I have not found any infirmity, inconsistency in the findings of the Courts below on appreciation of the evidence for passing the decree on the ground of alleged bonafide genuine requirement in favour of respondent No. 1. Accordingly, there is a concurrent findings in favour of respondent No. 1 on the ground of bonafide genuine requirement enumerated under section 12(1)(f) of the Act and such findings being findings of fact, could not be interfered at the stage of second appeal under section 100 of the CPC as laid down by the apex Court in the matter of Dr. Rambir Singh Vs. Asharfi Lal (1995)6 SCC 580 . So in such premises, I have not found any substance in the appeal giving rise to question of law rather then substantial question of law. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed. 7. Coming to consider the alternate prayer of the appellants counsel for extending the period to vacate the disputed premises. Firstly, I asked the respondent counsel what is his submission if such prayer of the appellants is considered by the Court, on which, after consultation with the respondent No. 1, he submits he did not have any objection if the period of one year and six months is extended to the appellants to vacate the premises by imposition of usual terms and conditions on them under the discretion of the Court so that the respondents may take the possession of the disputed property from the appellants peacefully within the period so fixed by the Court. Therefore, in view of such consent also the aforesaid prayer of the appellants counsel is being considered. 8. I am of the considered view that persons who are running their business in the disputed shop since long, it is not possible for them to vacate the same within a very short period of two months. Therefore, in view of such consent also the aforesaid prayer of the appellants counsel is being considered. 8. I am of the considered view that persons who are running their business in the disputed shop since long, it is not possible for them to vacate the same within a very short period of two months. So, in such premises to make the alternate arrangement, with the consent of respondent No. 1, I deem fit to extend the period of 1½ years from today to the appellants to vacate the disputed premises on the following terms and conditions:- (A) The appellants shall deposit the entire decreetal sum (including the arrears of rent) in accordance with the impugned decree within 30 days from today with the trial Court along with an undertaking that they shall vacate the disputed shop peacefully and handover its possession to the respondents on or before 25.8.2014. (B) The appellants shall also pay the mesne profit in connection of using the aforesaid disputed shop at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month i.e. equal to the monthly rent as held by the Courts below within 15 days from the end of every Gregorian calender month till vacating the premises within the aforesaid period. If, such amount is not accepted by the respondents then, it will be deposited by them with the trial/executing Court. 9. Subject to aforesaid compliance the eviction part of the impugned decree till 25.8.2014 is hereby stayed. 10. It is further observed that if any of the aforesaid terms or condition is violated by the appellants then the respondents shall be at liberty to execute the decree at once without any further order or direction of this Court. 11. In the available circumstances, there shall be no order as to the costs.