JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal under section 100, Civil Procedure Code has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment dated 24-12-2009 passed by IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/2009 whereby judgment and decree dated 30-10-2009 passed by I Civil Judge Class-II, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 75-A/2008 has been reversed and consequently, the civil suit filed by the present appellant/plaintiff/ landlord has been dismissed. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that plaintiff/landlord filed a suit seeking eviction of the respondents/defendants/tenants mainly on the ground of bona fide requirement of his son to start a medical clinic in the said premise therefore, eviction was sought mainly under section 12(1)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short “Act of 1961”). It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff is having suit shop situate at Shivpuri which was given on rent to the husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendants No. 2 and 3, namely late Shri Jalaluddin @ Rs. 30 per month. After her death, defendants continued tenancy at the rate Rs. 50 per month. The rent of the said premise was due since 1-12-2001. However, after receipt of legal notice, defendants raised the rent up till September, 2008. It was further pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff is in bona fide requirement of the suit shop for opening up a clinic for his son Dr. Anurag Mittal for which plaintiff does not have any other vacant shop available in the vicinity of the Municipal Council, Shivpuri therefore, on the basis of bona fide requirement and non-availability of the alternative accommodation, the suit was filed. 3. Defendants filed their written statement and admitted the tenancy. It was pleaded by the defendants that the suit shop was taken on rent in year 1962 by late Shri Jalaluddin who died on 4-4-2008. Defendants No. 2-Ikramuddin is the tenant in the suit shop, however it was pleaded that he is the brother of Nasimuddin who is left out to be arrayed as defendant being the tenant in the suit shop, therefore, his exclusion as defendant renders the suit liable for dismissal on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. The submissions of the plaintiff was rebutted by the defendants and it was submitted that son of the plaintiff Dr. The submissions of the plaintiff was rebutted by the defendants and it was submitted that son of the plaintiff Dr. Anurag Mittal is having a clinic at Indore where he is working with his wife Dr. Sapna Mittal therefore they are well established at Indore and therefore, it would be difficult for them to leave Indore and start a clinic at Shivpuri. Similarly, alternative accommodation is available to the plaintiff. 4. Trial Court framed as many as four issues in the matter in which Issues No. 1 and 2 were in respect of section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 and Issue No. 3 was in respect of non-joinder of necessary party. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties (total 5 witnesses by the plaintiff and 3 by the defendants) decreed the suit and found the requirement of plaintiff for his son to start a clinic at Shivpuri as bona fide and in absence of any suitable alternative accommodation, plaintiff was found to be entitled for decree of eviction. On the basis of discussion in respect of issue regarding non-joinder of necessary party, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit does not suffer from the same because Nasimuddin was not proved to be working in the suit shop and it was not found to be in the suit shop doing business. Even otherwise his interest and estate were duly represented by other defendants. Against the judgment of the trial Court, defendants/tenants preferred a civil regular appeal under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 5. According to the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, plaintiff did not plead specifically about the bona fide requirement that his son is practicing at Indore but still requires the suit premise/shop for starting his clinic at Shivpuri therefore, he did not prove the bona fide requirement. It was also noted that plaintiff has sufficient alternative accommodation therefore, his bona fide requirement was found not to be bona fide and therefore, appeal was allowed. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, appellant/plaintiff/landlord is before this Court under section 100, Civil Procedure Code. 6. It was also noted that plaintiff has sufficient alternative accommodation therefore, his bona fide requirement was found not to be bona fide and therefore, appeal was allowed. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, appellant/plaintiff/landlord is before this Court under section 100, Civil Procedure Code. 6. While hearing on admission, this Court on 3-9-2010, admitted the instant appeal on following substantial questions of law :— (i) “Whether, in the absence of specific finding as to the fact that who is the owner of the clinic situated at Indore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be decreed ?” (ii) “Whether, plaintiff has proved his bona fide need in terms of section 12(1)(f) of the Act ?” (iii) “Whether, the judgment and decree passed by learned lower Appellate Court is sustainable in the eyes of law ?” 7. According to counsel for the appellant, lower Appellate Court erred in substantial question of law by dislodging the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court wherein trial Court after marshaling the evidence led by both the parties, while adopting the true scope and import of section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 and after considering the fact situation, rightly came to the conclusion about the bona fide need of the plaintiff and absence of alternative accommodation in the vicinity of Municipal Council Shivpuri. It was further submitted by counsel for the appellant that the ground on which lower Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is that the son of plaintiff is already running a clinic at Indore therefore, no bona fide need of the plaintiff exists to start a clinic at Shivpuri and fact that son was running a clinic at Indore was not pleaded, is erroneous finding given by the Appellate Court. Requirement of section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 is that if the person should be in requirement of tenanted premises, for which he is having no other suitable shop in the municipal limits of the concerned city. It was required for the plaintiff to plead the fact that his son for whom the shop is required, is running a clinic at Indore or he and his wife are running a clinic at Indore and now they want to come back to Shivpuri. It was required for the plaintiff to plead the fact that his son for whom the shop is required, is running a clinic at Indore or he and his wife are running a clinic at Indore and now they want to come back to Shivpuri. Necessary fact that was pleaded in the plaint was that plaintiff requires suit premises for bona fide requirement of starting a clinic by his son at Shivpuri therefore, learned Appellate Court erred in dismissing the well reasoned findings recorded by the trial Court that too without giving cogent finding or reason for the same. Through the catena of judgments referred by counsel for the appellant, he intends to submits that the landlord is the best judge of his bona fide need as well as suitability of the accommodation. 8. It is also submitted that defendants could not able to produce any evidence orally or documentary to assert their claims that plaintiff’s son is running a clinic at Indore owned by him. Plaintiff’s son Dr. Anurag Mittal admitted the fact that the clinic is owned by his wife and not by him. Even otherwise, a medical practitioner can shift to his native place if situations are conducive to that and there is no prohibition for the same. It is further submitted that tenants are properly represented by the defendants and there is no clash of interest between Nasimuddin and present defendants. There was no case for non-joinder of necessary party. Defendants could not produce any witness to contend that Nasimuddin sits in the suit shop for the business purpose. He might have sat along with Ikrammudin but that cannot be a ground to reach to a conclusion that Nasimmudin was also a necessary party. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/tenants/defendants opposed the submissions of the appellant with equal vehemence and supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. According to him, the trial Court did not appreciate the controversy in correct perspective and therefore, the Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree. He referred the judgment of the Appellate Court and findings given by it specifically in paras 13 to 18. According to him, the trial Court did not appreciate the controversy in correct perspective and therefore, the Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree. He referred the judgment of the Appellate Court and findings given by it specifically in paras 13 to 18. He submits that specific pleadings should have been pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint about the fact that his son is practicing (medical) at Indore and he wants to come to Shivpuri while leaving his practice at Indore. In absence of such pleadings, it can be safely assumed that plaintiff has not pleaded his bona fide requirement, whereas for eviction on the basis of bona fide requirement, specific pleading of bona fide requirement through evidence is required to be established. Bona fide is a state of mind and must be manifested in actual need through evidence. Here in the present case, neither the bona fide requirement was pleaded nor plaintiff could establish that he has no other suitable accommodation. In fact, plaintiff has many other alternative accommodations in the municipal limits of Shivpuri and therefore, his bona fide requirement is not in good faith. 10. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court rightly corrected the findings given by the trial Court by substituting its own findings, on proper appreciation of the evidence. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deena Nath vs. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 , Kempaiah vs. Lingaiah, (2001) 8 SCC 718 and judgment of this Court in the case of Hakimuddin Saifi vs. Prem Narayan Barchhiha, 1998(1) M.P.L.J. 203 and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 12. Regarding substantial questions of Law No. 1, 2 and 3 collectively. The substantial questions of law as framed by this Court on 3-9-2010 mainly revolves around findings recorded under section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961. Plaintiff in his support led the evidence of five witnesses including himself and his son for whom the bona fide requirement to start the clinic is pleaded. The substantial questions of law as framed by this Court on 3-9-2010 mainly revolves around findings recorded under section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961. Plaintiff in his support led the evidence of five witnesses including himself and his son for whom the bona fide requirement to start the clinic is pleaded. As far as pleadings of bona fide requirement is concerned, plaintiff made specific pleading that he is in bona fide requirement of the tenanted premise for starting the clinic of his son at Shivpuri and he has no other suitable shop in the vicinity of Municipal Council of Shivpuri. The purpose of pleading bona fide requirement is to convey the facts and grounds on which plaintiff raised his case so that defendants can take defence accordingly. In the present case, defendants were filing written statement that eviction suit has been filed against them for the bona fide requirement of the son of the appellant Dr. Anurag Mittal. Once the said pleading is being made then plaintiff is not required to plead elaborately about the fact that he is already having a clinic at Indore and he wants to come back to Shivpuri for number of reasons and he does not have any alternative suitable accommodation to start his clinic. Similarly, plaintiff was not required to plead that his son and daughter-in-law both are practicing at Indore and daughter-in-law owns a premises in which both of them are running their respective clinics. The pleadings raised in the plaint are sufficient to convey the intention therefore, appellant has pleaded the bona fide requirement and non-availability of the alternative suitable accommodation for the said purpose in the plaint in clean terms. 13. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and in his examination-in-chief, he pleaded the bona fide requirement as well as non-availability of the suitable vacant accommodation. Similarly, his son Dr. Anurag Mittal also appeared in the witness box and reiterated his bona fide desire to start a clinic at his birth place for which he is not having any vacant shop available in the Municipal limits of Shivpuri. In cross-examination, he categorically stated that he is working at Indore with his wife but the clinic is owned by his wife and not by his father. In cross-examination, he categorically stated that he is working at Indore with his wife but the clinic is owned by his wife and not by his father. He categorically admits that he will open up his clinic at Shivpuri then his wife will also come back to Shivpuri and will reside with him. Other witnesses also reiterated the said fact. 14. Defendants have led their evidence through Ikrammudin (DW-1), Mohan Singh (DW-2) and Babulal Soni (DW-3). All the three witnesses in their respective cross-examinations, expressed their ignorance about the exact ownership of the clinic at Indore. Ikrammudin (DW-1) admits that he does not know whether the clinic in which the son of the plaintiff is working is of plaintiff or somebody else. He pleaded its ignorance even about the house at Indore in which plaintiff and his son are allegedly residing. The same is with other witnesses. Once, the witnesses did not have any knowledge about the ownership of the clinic then the Appellate Court erred in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The ownership of the clinic at Indore was not proved through oral or documentary evidence. Defendants failed to prove that the clinic at Indore was of the ownership of the plaintiff or even of his son. Alternative accommodation must be owned by the plaintiff to give a dent over the bona fide requirement of the plaintiff. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that bona fide requirement has to be genuine and alternative accommodation must be owned by the plaintiff. [See: (1999) 6 SC 222, Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta). The same view is reiterated by this Court in the case of Poonam Khandelwal and others vs. Pankaj Khandelwaland others, 2012(1) M.P.L.J. 109 . 15. Similarly, this Court also had the occasion to ponder over the controversy in the cases of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Kamal Vasini Agrawal and another, 2005(3) M.P.L.J. 404 held that plaintiff must be the owner of the alternative accommodation suggested by the defendants. In the present case, clinic at Indore is not owned by the plaintiff and there is no finding recorded by the learned judge of the Appellate Court on the basis of any document that at Indore the clinic is owned by the plaintiff. In the present case, clinic at Indore is not owned by the plaintiff and there is no finding recorded by the learned judge of the Appellate Court on the basis of any document that at Indore the clinic is owned by the plaintiff. Similarly, this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar and others vs. Ashok Kumar and others, 2006(3) MPHT 292 held that house of the wife cannot be treated as alternative accommodation for the husband. Therefore, in absence of any specific findings about the ownership of clinic situate at Indore, plaintiff could not have been non-suited on this ground; therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be decreed by the first Appellate Court in absence of specific finding about the ownership of the clinic at Indore. 16. The bona fide need of the plaintiff has to be proved in terms of section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 wherein bona fide requirement and non-availability of the suitable accommodation has to be pleaded and proved. Here plaintiff had to prove that his son intends to start a clinic at Shivpuri and for starting the clinic at Shivpuri, no other suitable accommodation is existing. Several properties owned by the plaintiff were referred in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and after considering all those properties and their reasonableness/ suitability, the learned Judge of the trial Court came to the conclusion that accommodation which is required by the plaintiff as suit property is the most suitable accommodation for him because landlord is the best judge of his requirement. As such starting a clinic is a different type of profession and therefore, its suitability can be adjudged by the person who intends to start the clinic. Other accommodations may be available, which are primarily residential in nature but the suitability of the clinic is to be decided by the person who starts the clinic (son of the plaintiff in the present case). Therefore, objective assessment of the controversy was required in the case in hand where learned judge of the Appellate Court faltered. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Akhileshwar Kumar and others vs. Mustaqim and others, (2003) 1 SCC 462 has held that once bona fide requirement is proved by the landlord then the Court has to adopt objective approach regarding choice of accommodation. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Akhileshwar Kumar and others vs. Mustaqim and others, (2003) 1 SCC 462 has held that once bona fide requirement is proved by the landlord then the Court has to adopt objective approach regarding choice of accommodation. In the case of R. C. Tamrakar and another vs. Nidi Lekha, 2001(8) SCC 431 , it has been held by the apex Court that landlord is the best judge of his requirement in deciding the question of bona fide requirement. It is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how the landlord adjust himself. 18. Therefore, on the basis of cumulative analysis and in the considered opinion of this Court, bona fide requirement is proved by the appellant as well as absence of any suitable accommodation in the city of Shivpuri is also proved therefore, necessary ingredients of section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 were proved by the appellant through oral and documentary evidence. One important aspect which is overlooked by the First Appellate Court is that a medical practitioner for better prospects can come to his native place and can settle there for emotional and professional reasons and even if his wife owned any clinic at other place then that cannot be a ground to non-suit the plaintiff who wants to get the suit shop after more than 50 years of tenancy from the defendants. Microscopic scrutiny of bona fide requirement is not warranted in the case for bona fide requirement under section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961. The person having clinic at one place even can extend his profession or business at other place [See: M/s Sait Nagjee Pursushotham and Co. Ltd. vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and others, 2006 AIR SCW 45, Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 100 ] therefore, it can be concluded that plaintiff has proved his bona fide need in terms of section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961. Substantial questions No. 1, 2 and 3 are answered accordingly. 19. It is settled in law that judgment and decree passed by the trial Court based on appreciation of cogent evidence need not to be disturbed unless findings are perverse or contrary to the law. Here, the first Appellate Court given the findings which are not duly appreciated on the basis of evidence and objective consideration. 19. It is settled in law that judgment and decree passed by the trial Court based on appreciation of cogent evidence need not to be disturbed unless findings are perverse or contrary to the law. Here, the first Appellate Court given the findings which are not duly appreciated on the basis of evidence and objective consideration. When plaintiff proved his bona fide requirement in terms of section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 as held in substantial question of law No. 2, then the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court has to go. Therefore, it is held that judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Because it is contrary to the evidence led by the parties and suffers from illegality and perversity. Trial Court rightly dealt the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties, because defendants could not able to prove that Nasimmudin was occupant of suit shop and was running his business from there. In absence of any evidence, trial Court rightly decided the said issue in favour of appellant. 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 24-12-2009 passed by IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/2009 is hereby set aside and suit filed by the appellant/ plaintiff/ landlord is hereby decreed. 21. Appeal stands allowed.