JUDGMENT : B.D. Rathi, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. Present second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant-tenant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved from the judgment dated 7/10/2013 passed by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 21A/13 against partly dismissal of the appeal whereby the decree passed by the trial court vide judgment dated 22/3/2013 passed in C.S. No. 6A/12 against the appellant to the extent of ground under Section 12 (1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (in short the Act) was confirmed but rest part of it was reversed and set aside on the ground under Section12(1)(k) of the Act. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that one civil suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent Vinod Kumar Goyal against appellant Sunil Agarwal for eviction from the tenanted shop on the grounds enumerated under sections 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(k) of the Act. The suit was filed for eviction on the ground of bona fide reasonable personal necessity by the plaintiff/landlord. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff and against defendant on the grounds under Sections12(1)(f) and 12(1)(k) of the Act. The appeal filed against said judgment and decree was modified to the extent as mentioned above. Hence being aggrieved from that part of the impugned judgment and decree, the present has been preferred. 4. Shri K.S. Tomar, learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant has argued that the impugned findings recorded by the trial court as well as learned first appellate court suffer from perversity as the evidence has not been appreciated in proper perspective. It is submitted that the courts-below erred to consider the fact that previously three shops were sold out by the plaintiff which shows that the plaintiff's need was not projected on bona fide ground. It was also not considered by the courts below that notice Ex. P/3 was given by one Gopaldas for running his own business who is brother of the plaintiff. Nowhere, it was mentioned in the notice Ex. P/3 that the suit shop was required for personal necessity of the plaintiff himself. It is also pointed out by the Sr. It was also not considered by the courts below that notice Ex. P/3 was given by one Gopaldas for running his own business who is brother of the plaintiff. Nowhere, it was mentioned in the notice Ex. P/3 that the suit shop was required for personal necessity of the plaintiff himself. It is also pointed out by the Sr. Advocate that in a claim preferred by the respondent/plaintiff Vinod Kumar Goyal under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act the statement has been made by the claimant/plaintiff Vinod Kumar Goyal that they are four brothers in all who are residing jointly. Same statement was also given by the plaintiff in this case before the courts-below but this aspect was not considered at both the stages. An attention of this court has been drawn on the application preferred under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for taking the said facts on record, which is still pending consideration. 5. In addition to above, it is submitted that plaintiff Vinod Kumar in his statement in para 13 has categorically stated that he has two shops; one is belonging to Pawan Kumar and another shop is in the possession of the tenant. Again in para 11 it was stated by the plaintiff that partition of the property amongst these four brothers took place but no such documents were produced to show as to what kind of property they have received in share after partition. In para 11 it was also stated by the plaintiff that there are 19 shops in the market though it was explained by the plaintiff that out of said 19 shops, he has received two shops in share but no document was produced to show bona fide need by the plaintiff. In support of contentions, reliance is placed on the Apex court decision in the case of Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 as well as the decision of this court in the case of Gayatri & others v. Ashish Kumar [ 2010 (3) MPLJ 103 ]. On the basis of above arguments, it is submitted by the learned Sr. counsel that the appeal deserves to be admitted being involved substantial question of law as to "whether decree under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act can be passed even in absence of establishing bona fide need by the plaintiff?". 6. On the basis of above arguments, it is submitted by the learned Sr. counsel that the appeal deserves to be admitted being involved substantial question of law as to "whether decree under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act can be passed even in absence of establishing bona fide need by the plaintiff?". 6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Shri P.C. Chandil, learned counsel for the respondent that admittedly shops were in possession of other tenants and same were sold to the tenants. They are not in vacant possession of the plaintiff. So far as non-production of partition deed is concerned, nowhere it was pleaded by the defendant in his evidence that in partition the plaintiff has got so many shops. It is also submitted that it is the choice of the plaintiff to prove his case. Apart that, it is also submitted that the appellant/defendant Sunil Agarwal has admitted in para 12 that he has not produced any document to show whether any other vacant shop is available to the plaintiff for non-residential purposes. As regards the objection taken by the appellant on the strength of issuing notice by the brother of the plaintiff, it is contended by the counsel for the respondent that it is nowhere made obligatory that the plaintiff should himself send a notice to the tenant for his eviction. Therefore, if wrong notice is given by the brother of the plaintiff even then that will not affect the rights of the plaintiff in a matter for seeking eviction of the tenant. Suffice it to say only the evidence of landlord is enough to prove his own need. Hence, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may be dismissed being bereft of merits. 7. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties the entire evidence on record has been perused. 8. On careful examination of the findings recorded by the trial court as well as first appellate court, it is evident that both the courts have concurrently found it proved that no other vacant alternative shop is available for the plaintiff to carry out his own business. So far as other shops are concerned, same were sold by the plaintiff to the tenants themselves during tenancy period, who were inducted therein earlier. So far as other shops are concerned, same were sold by the plaintiff to the tenants themselves during tenancy period, who were inducted therein earlier. In such circumstances, after appreciating the entire evidence adduced by the parties, the courts-below have rightly held that the suit shop was required for bona fide personal necessity by the plaintiff. No illegality has been noticed in arriving such conclusion. 9. In view of above discussion, this court does not find any involvement of substantial of question of law in this appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed in limine. 10. The decree be drawn up accordingly. 11. Record of the case be sent back to the courts-below with a copy of this order.