JUDGMENT : Vivek Rusia, J. 1. The appellant Radheshyam (since dead, now represented through legal heirs) has filed this second appeal against judgment and decree dated 14.8.2013 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 29/2012, whereby judgment and decree dated 16.7.2012 passed by 9th Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore in Civil Suit No. 10A/2011 dismissing the suit under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter, for short, "the Act of 1961"), has been reversed and decreed the suit under section 12(1) (f) of the Act of 1961. 2. Facts of the case necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under: (i) Respondent (here in after referred as 'plaintiff) filed the civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent against Late Radheshyam (here in after referred as 'defendant no. 1') and his brother Satyanarayan (here in after referred as 'defendant no. 2'). As per averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff is owner of the ground floor shop having Municipal No.492 (old No.391), Jawahar Marg, Indore of area 16 x 20 Sq. ft. (hereinafter, for short, "suit shop"). The suit shop was purchased by the plaintiff by registered sale-deed No. 1A/6206 dated 30.3.1998 from Smt. Rampyari hence thereafter he became the owner. Before said sale, the suit shop was already in the possession of the defendants as tenant on rent Rs. 1,350/- per month for nonresidential purposes and after the sale of the suit shop, they became tenant of the plaintiff. (ii) The defendant no. 1 is running the business of sale of dry-fruits in the suit shop. That vide notice dated 3.8.1998 the plaintiff gave the information to the defendants about acquiring the ownership of suit shop by him. The defendants accepted the ownership and started paying the rent to the plaintiff. They paid the rent up to 31.3.2003. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy and requested the defendant to handover the vacant possession and to pay the arrears of rent. After termination of the tenancy, the suit for eviction and possession was filed on the ground of bona fide under section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961. They paid the rent up to 31.3.2003. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy and requested the defendant to handover the vacant possession and to pay the arrears of rent. After termination of the tenancy, the suit for eviction and possession was filed on the ground of bona fide under section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961. (iii) According to the plaintiff, at present he is running the business in the small shop situated in basement of 23, Ramkrishna Bhawan which is insufficient for his business and he or any member of his family are not having any other non-residential accommodation of their ownership in the city of Indore. The area of the basement shop is only 11 x 8 = 88 Sq. ft., and because of which he is running his business with great difficulty and for expansion of his business, he is in bona fide need of the suit shop as it is measuring 320 Sq. ft. and situated at ground floor. 3. According to the plaintiff, despite receipt of notice, defendants did not pay the rent w.e.f. 31.3.2003, hence he filed the suit seeking a decree of eviction under section 12(1)(a) & (f) of the Act of 1961. By way of amendment, the plaintiff made a pleading in the plaint that his brother used to do the business for years together in the name of "Samta Fruits" and now the name has been changed to "Gyanesh Fruits" The plaintiff is not having any business either in the name "Samta Fruits" or in the name of "Gyanesh Fruits". He is only running his business in the premises at 23, Krishna Bhawan, Siyaganj, Indore. The plaintiff has made a special pleading by way of amendment that after the death of his father, house No. 390 (new No. 491) came into the share of Smt. Jalnadevi W/o. Jambu Kumar by way of Will dated 12.4.2010 and House No. 391 (new No. 491), Jawahar Marg, Indore came into the share of Manjuladevi Jain, therefore, he is not having any alternative and suitable accommodation in Indore city for his business except the suit shop. 4. Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement independently refuting the averments made in the plaint. 4. Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement independently refuting the averments made in the plaint. By way of special pleading, it was submitted that the plaintiff is one of the member of joint business his father - Samrathmal and brothers - Jambu Kumar Jain and Dilip Kumar Jain but for the purposes of income tax, sales tax, they are doing the business in different names. They are forming a joint Hindu family and doing the joint business. The plaintiff, his father and two brothers are having following seven accommodations in the city of Indore, which are suitable for the business of dry-fruits. The details are as under: S.No. Alternative Accommodation 1. 22-B, Ramkrishna Bhawan (shop), Siyaganj, Indore. 2. 23, Ramkrishna Bhawan (shop No. 10 & 11), Siyaganj, Indore. 3. 22, Marothiya Bazaar, Indore/Saatha Bazar, Indore. 4. 23-F-6, New No. 12, Siyaganj, Basement, Indore. 5. 7/12, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore. 6. 1166/1, New Loha Mandi, Gali No. 1, Indore. 7. 491, Jawahar Marg, Indore. 5. The plaintiff and his family members are engaged in the business of dry-fruits, grocery, whole-sale, semi-whole-sale and dealership of dry-fruits, spices in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. The defendant No. 1 is also doing the business of sale of spices, dry-fruits and because of the professional rivalry, the plaintiff want to close down the business of defendant No. 1, hence they filed the present suit on the basis of fictional bona fide need. The plaintiff is having shop at 23, Siyaganj, Indore, but he has kept it closed which is suitable for his business. He is having number of shops more than his need and he used to sit in the shop No. 491, Jawahar Marg, Indore, 22, Marothia Bazar, Indore and he is wrongly snowing his brother Jambu Kumar as Manager. There is no arrears of rent from 5.6.2003 because all have been paid by way of Account Payee Cheque dated 30.6.2003. Thereafter, he is regularity depositing the rent in the Court and hence from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2005, rent of Rs.13,500/- has been paid. By way of amendment, it is pleaded that after the death of Samrathmal, the plaintiff has received house No. 491 (new No. 391), Jawahar Marg, Indore situated at basement and house No. 491 (new No. 390), Jawahar Marg, therefore, his so called bona fide need has also been fulfilled. 6. By way of amendment, it is pleaded that after the death of Samrathmal, the plaintiff has received house No. 491 (new No. 391), Jawahar Marg, Indore situated at basement and house No. 491 (new No. 390), Jawahar Marg, therefore, his so called bona fide need has also been fulfilled. 6. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court framed as many as 7 issues for adjudication, which are reproduced below: 1 & D;k oknh nkfo;k Hkou Øekad 492] tokgjekxZ bankSj dh ry eafty dks jkeI;kjhckà oxSjg ls iathc} foØ;i= }kjk Ø; dj HkouLokeh gksus gh lwpuk izfroknhx.k dks iznRr dj fn;k gS\ 2 & D;k izfroknhx.k nkfo;k Hkou esa oknh dk 1350@& ¼,d gtkj rhu lkS ipkl #i;s½ izfrekg dh nj ls xSj fuoklh iz;kstu gsrq fdjk;snkj gS\ 3 & D;k oknh dks nkfo;k Hkou dh ry eafty Mªk;ÝqV~l ds O;olk; gsrq ln~Hkkfod ,oa okLrfod vkl';drk gS\ 4 & D;k oknh ds ikl nkfo;k Hkou ds vykok vU; dksà ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lqfo/kktue LFkku bankSj 'kgj esa ugha gS\ 5 & D;k oknh] izfroknhx.k ls nkfo;k Hkou dk vo'ks"k fdjk;k fnukad 01-04-2003 ls fnukad 21-01- 2004 rd 13 ]500@& ¼,d gtkj rhu lkS ipkl #i;s½ izkIr djus dk gdnkj gS\ 6 & D;k oknh }kjk nkos dk mfpr ewY;kadu dj mfpr U;k; 'kqYd lekfo"V fd;k x;k gS\ 7 & lgk;rk ,oa okn O;;\ 7. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1; Hastimal Jain as P.W. 2; Anandilal as P.W. 3 and Dilip Kumar as P.W. 4 and got exhibited 33 documentary evidence as Ex. P/1 to P/33. In support of written statement, the defendant No. 1 examined himself as D.W. 1; Dinesh Kumar Garg as D.W. 2; Mukesh Chandak as D.W. 3; Rakesh Patidar as D.W. 4; Rajesh Agrawal as D.W.5 and Satyanarayan as D.W. 6 and got exhibited 10 documentary evidence as Ex. D/1 to D/10. 8. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff purchased the ground floor of House No. 492, Jawahar Marg from Rampyaribai and at that time the defendant No. 1 was the tenant in the suit shop for non-residential purposes at rent @ Rs. 1,350/- per month. D/1 to D/10. 8. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff purchased the ground floor of House No. 492, Jawahar Marg from Rampyaribai and at that time the defendant No. 1 was the tenant in the suit shop for non-residential purposes at rent @ Rs. 1,350/- per month. While answering the issue framed in respect of bona fide need, learned trial Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his bona fide and actual need of suit shop for the business of sale of dry-fruits. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that he and his family members are not having any suitable and appropriate accommodation in the town except the suit shop. He has also not been held entitled for arrears of rent from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 amounting to Rs. 13,500/-. Hence, vide judgment and decree dated 16.7.2012, learned trial Court has dismissed the suit and declined the decree of eviction under section 12(1)(a) & (f) of the Act of 1961. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred first appeal No. 29/2012 before the District Court, Indore. Defendant No. 1 also filed Cross Appeal under Order 41, Rule 22 of the C.P.C. against the findings recorded by the trial Court on Issue No. 1 and 2 vide judgment dated 16.7.2012. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.2013, learned first appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2012 and decreed the suit under section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961. Learned first appellate Court has also directed the defendant to pay the double rent for one year as compensation. Defendant No. 1 has also been directed to handover the possession of the suit shop within a period of two months. Learned first appellate Court has dismissed the cross appeal filed by defendant No. 1. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court, defendant No. 1 has preferred the present second appeal before this Court. Learned first appellate Court has dismissed the cross appeal filed by defendant No. 1. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court, defendant No. 1 has preferred the present second appeal before this Court. Vide order dated 5.5.2014, this Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law: "Whether lower appellate Court was justified to decree the suit of the plaintiff under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act reversing the finding of the trial Court in view of the pleadings and evidence regarding availability of alternative accommodation, however, said finding is not perverse?" 11. During pendency of this appeal, defendant No.1 has filed as many as four applications under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. seeking permission to file additional evidence. Before deciding the appeal on merits, it would be appropriate to decide these applications. (i) First application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (I.A. No.5701/2013) - According to defendant No.1, he has obtained the information under RTI Act that son of the plaintiff namely Vipul has submitted an application before the Indore Municipal Corporation to get a license to start business in Shop No. 23/3, Siyaganj, Indore. Respondent/plaintiff filed the reply to the aforesaid application by submitting that the said certificate issued by Indore Municipal Corporation is not relevant for the just decision of this case and the same has been filed for delaying the proceedings. (ii) Second application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (I.A. No. 4374/2014) - By this application, the defendant No. 1 has filed photocopy of RC File details (Firm Registration Certification) to establish that the plaintiff is running his business in the name of "Dinesh Kumar Prafulla Kumar Co." in Shop No. 491, Jawahar Marg, Siyaganj, Indore. Respondent/plaintiff filed the reply to the aforesaid application by submitting that the aforesaid document has already been considered by the learned trial Court in Para 48 of the judgment and held that Jambu Kumar is tenant in Shop No. 491, Jawahar Marg, Siyaganj, Indore. Respondent/plaintiff filed the reply to the aforesaid application by submitting that the aforesaid document has already been considered by the learned trial Court in Para 48 of the judgment and held that Jambu Kumar is tenant in Shop No. 491, Jawahar Marg, Siyaganj, Indore. (iii) Third application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (I.A. No. 781/2019) - By this application, defendant No. 1 has prayed for taking certain documents on record to establish that the plaintiff is carrying his business at Ramkrishna Bhawan, Indore in the name of "Dinesh Kumar Prafulla Kumar Co.", later on, he has transferred the premises to his son - Vipul. Defendant No.1 has also filed documents received from Goods & Service Tax Department, transportation receipts, E-pay bills, tax invoices, etc. to show that the plaintiff is successfully doing his business in the premises in his possession. He has also obtained certain documents to establish that the plaintiff has developed and acquired another commercial premises of his own along with other family members at 7/2, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore, in which, he is having two shops and one commercial hall which is suitable for his business of dry-fruits. (iv) Fourth application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (I.A. No. 1994/2019) - This application has been filed to establish that the plaintiff is having another alternative accommodation at 1166/1, New Loha Mandi, Indore suitable for fulfillment of his need. The said location is business hub of the city located at center of the city. Defendant No. 1 has also filed the account-details of property tax payable from 1997 till March, 2019 as additional documents. By this application, the defendant No. 1 has also filed certain documents to establish ownership of the plaintiff in respect of accommodation at 491, Jawahar Marg, Siyaganj, Indore which is subject matter of I.A. No. 781/2019. Respondent/plaintiff has filed the reply to the aforesaid application by submitting that the accommodation at New Loha Mandi, Indore is a godown, not a shop. In Loha Mandi market is famous for steel business where he cannot start his business of dry-fruits. So far as Shop No. 491 is concerned, the same is owned by Jambu Kumar, in which, plaintiff is tenant. 12. In Loha Mandi market is famous for steel business where he cannot start his business of dry-fruits. So far as Shop No. 491 is concerned, the same is owned by Jambu Kumar, in which, plaintiff is tenant. 12. So far as aforesaid four applications under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. are concerned, documents filed along with application are not relevant for consideration in this appeal for the simple reason that this Court has admitted the appeal on the sole question of law that whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings of trial Court based on the pleadings and evidence regarding alternative accommodation, however, the said finding is not perverse? Therefore, this Court is only required to consider the evidence and documents filed along with the plaint and the written statement in order to decide the availability of alternative accommodation to the plaintiff on which the trial Court has dismissed the suit but the first appellate Court has reversed the finding. Hence, no new evidence is liable to be considered in this appeal. The suit and first appeal remained pending for more than two decades and defendant no. 1 did not file these documents, hence now they are being filed only for the purpose of remand and delay the eviction proceedings. However while appreciating the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel this court would also consider these documents because the pleadings in regards to are already there in the records. Accordingly, all the aforesaid four applications are liable to be and are hereby rejected. 13. Defendant No. 1 has filed another application under Order 41, Rule 2 of C.P.C. proposing additional substantial questions of law, but during the course of arguments, Shri Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, has not pressed the said application, hence the same is hereby rejected. 14. I have heard Shri V.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellant/defendant and Shri A.K. Sethi, Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent/plaintiff at length and perused the record of Courts below. 15. The appeal has been admitted on the sole question of law as to whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court which are not perverse? Advocate appearing for the appellant/defendant and Shri A.K. Sethi, Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent/plaintiff at length and perused the record of Courts below. 15. The appeal has been admitted on the sole question of law as to whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court which are not perverse? On the basis of same set of evidence, learned trial Court has declined the decree under section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 but appellate court has decreed the suit. In order to get decree under section 12(1)(f), the plaintiff is required to plead and prove that he is not having any alternative and suitable accommodation of his own in the city to start the business either for himself or for his other family members. The Supreme Court of India in case of Hasmat Rai & Anr. v. Raghunath Prasad reported in AIR 1981 SC 1711 : 1981 (3) SCR 605 has held as under:- "Section 12 starts with a non-obstante clause thereby curtailing the right of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant which he might have under any other law and the right of eviction is made subject to the overriding provision of section 12. It is thus an enabling section. In order to avail of the benefit conferred by section 12 to seek eviction of the tenant the landlord must satisfy the essential ingredients of the section. The landlord in this case seeks eviction of the tenant under section 12(1)(f). He must, therefore, establish (i) that he requires bona fide possession of a building let for non-residential purpose for continuing or starting his business; and (ii) that he has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. The burden to establish both the requirements of section 12(1)(f) is squarely on the landlord. And before an allegation of fact to obtain the relief required is permitted to be proved, the law of pleadings require that such facts have to be alleged and must be put in issue. The burden to establish both the requirements of section 12(1)(f) is squarely on the landlord. And before an allegation of fact to obtain the relief required is permitted to be proved, the law of pleadings require that such facts have to be alleged and must be put in issue. Ordinarily, therefore, when a landlord seeks eviction under section 12(1)(f) the court after satisfying itself that there are proper pleadings must frame two issues namely (i) whether the plaintiff landlord proves that he bona fide requires possession of a building let to the tenant for non-residential purpose for continuing or starting his business, and (ii) whether he proves that he has no other reasonably suitable nonresidential accommodation of his own in the city or town concerned. Without elaborating we must notice a well-established proposition that any amount of proof offered without pleadings is generally of no relevance." In case of Prem Narayan Barchhiha v. Hakimuddin Saifi reported in AIR 1999 SC 2450 : (1999) 6 SCC 381 the apex court has held under:- 12. Now the ingredients of Clause (f), with which we are concerned here, are: (1) the accommodation from which the tenant is sought to be evicted has been let out" for non-residential purposes; (2) the landlord is the owner thereof and requires that accommodation bonafide for the purpose of continuing or starting (i) his business or (ii) business of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters; or (3) the landlord requires the accommodation for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held by him; and (4) the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable nonresidential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city/town concerned. 13. Admittedly, here requirements (1) and (2) are satisfied (2 and 3 are alternative). In regard to (4) what is necessary for the appellant is to satisfy the Court/Rent Controller that he or such person for whom eviction is sought, has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. On this aspect the learned Distt. Judge correctly recorded the finding in favour of the appellant. On this aspect the learned Distt. Judge correctly recorded the finding in favour of the appellant. It follows that the landlord seeking eviction of a tenant from nonresidential accommodation on the ground that he required the same for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, has to prove that he has no other reasonably suitable nonresidential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town. It is no part of the obligation of the landlord seeking eviction of a tenant under Clause (f) of Section 12(1) of the Act to aver in his plaint/petition the facts that he is in occupation of residential accommodation and that it is not suitable for non-residential purposes. These facts are not the requirement of Clause (f) and are irrelevant to make out a case under that clause. To read such a requirement in the said Clause (f) would amount to doing violence to the language of the clause nay rewriting the clause which is far beyond the principle of iron out the creases and is clearly impermissible. 16. This high court in case of Jangulal v. Smt. Parwati & ors reported in 1996 MP ACJ 46 has held that once it is stated that by the landlord that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own then obviously the burden shifts on the shoulder of the tenant to prove that the landlord possesses another accommodation of his own. 17. In this case, as per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff is doing his business of sale of dry-fruits in a shop at 23-F-6, Ramkrishna Bhawan, Siyaganj, Indore, which is situated in the basement with the area is 11 x 8 = 88 Sq.ft therefore same is insufficient to expand his business. The suit shop which is in possession of the defendant No. 1 is having much bigger area i.e. 20 x 16 = 320 Sq. ft. and situated at ground floor in Siyaganj, Indore which is more suitable. This fact has not been disputed by the defendant, but he came with the plea that the plaintiff and his family members are having other suitable shops in Indore city. According to the defendant no. ft. and situated at ground floor in Siyaganj, Indore which is more suitable. This fact has not been disputed by the defendant, but he came with the plea that the plaintiff and his family members are having other suitable shops in Indore city. According to the defendant no. 1, the plaintiff and his brothers are having joint business of manufacturing, wholesale and retail business of dry-fruits and there is professional rivalry with him. The trial Court has decided this controversy in issues Nos. 3 and 4. 18. While deciding Issue No. 3 and 4, learned trial Court has shifted the burden on the defendants to prove in rebuttal that the plaintiff is having other suitable accommodation in the city of Indore. According to D.W. 1, the plaintiff is owner of shop No. 22-B, Ramkrishna Bhawan, which he admitted in Para 44 of his evidence. He is also owner of shop No. 23 (shop Nos. 10 & 11), Ramkrishna Bhawan; 22, Marothia Bazar/Saatha Bazar, Indore; 7/12, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore; 1166/1, New Loha Mandi, Indore; and 491, Jawahar Marg, Indore. The documentary evidence in relation to 7/12, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore and 11/66/1; New Loha Mandi, Indore; and 491, Jawahar Marg, Indore have been filed by way of application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, but the pleadings have been made in the written statement. During pendency of the suit, father of the plaintiff Samrathmal has expired and by virtue of Will and partition, another accommodation situated at 22, Marothia Bazaar, Indore came to the share of the plaintiff. Marothia Bazaar is famous market for sale of grocery and the said shop is sufficiently bigger than the suit shop. The plaintiff is doing his business along with his brother Jambu Kumar and Dilip Kumar and for the purpose of income tax and sales tax, they are running the business in different names. The plaintiff's wife is also owner of Plot at Race Course Road, in which, construction is going on. In view of the above, learned trial Court has answered the Issue Nos. 3 and 4 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. 19. The plaintiff's wife is also owner of Plot at Race Course Road, in which, construction is going on. In view of the above, learned trial Court has answered the Issue Nos. 3 and 4 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. 19. Learned first appellate Court on the basis of same set of evidence has reversed the findings of trial Court on the ground that the shops, godowns plots and building called as as available and suitable accommodations are owned by the father, brother and wife and not by the plaintiff himself and the nature of business in the said accommodation is also different. Learned first appellate Court has re-examined each and every accommodation in the light of evidence adduced by the plaintiff as well as by the defendants. 20. So far as shop No. 23, Ramkrishna Bhawan, Siyaganj, Indore is concerned, the plaintiff is using the said shop as go down because it is situated in the basement. The area of the said shop is only 88 Sq. ft. which is less than the area of the suit shop and the same is situated 50-55 fts. Inside the road, therefore, it cannot be said the same is suitable for the business of the plaintiff. 21. So far as shop No. 491, Jawahar Marg, Indore is concerned, the said shop was purchased by Jambu Kumar, brother of the plaintiff which is evident from Ex. P/35. The defendants did not file any document to establish that after the death of father, said shop came into the share of the plaintiff. In the said shop, plaintiff's brother is already doing his whole-sale business, therefore, the appellate Court has not committed any error while recording the finding that the plaintiff is not having suitable and alternative accommodation in the city of Indore to start his business of dry-fruits. The shop in which the defendant is in possession, is having bigger area and situated at ground floor. The shop which is in possession of the plaintiff is having smaller area, therefore, for expansion of his business, he is in bona fide need of the same. The defendant has also admitted that he is doing the business of dry-fruits, therefore, that area is suitable for the business of dry-fruits. 22. The shop which is in possession of the plaintiff is having smaller area, therefore, for expansion of his business, he is in bona fide need of the same. The defendant has also admitted that he is doing the business of dry-fruits, therefore, that area is suitable for the business of dry-fruits. 22. Another alternative shop as alleged by the defendant is situated at 22-B, Ramkrishna Bhawan, Siyaganj, Indore, same is also in the name of plaintiff's brother Jambu Kumar not in the name of plaintiff. 23. So far as shop No. 22, Marothia Bazaar, Indore is concerned, only the ground floor of the said shop is commercial and rest of the two floors are being used for residential purposes. Said building was purchased by the father of the plaintiff in his name. According to the plaintiff, said house is belonging to joint family. According to the defendant, the plaintiff and his all other family members are doing their independent business. They may be living in the joint family, but there is no presumption of joint family business. They may have joint family properties, but for the purposes of business, they have their own properties for doing their business, under section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961, it is required to be established that the plaintiff is not having any alternative accommodation of his own in the city. The properties belonging to son, wife, brother, father are not liable to be considered for granting a decree under section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961. This court in case of Ajay Kumar & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. reported in 2006 (3) M.P.H.T. 292 has held that "In view of the settled position of law that the house of the wife could not be treated as alternate accommodation for the husband as laid down by this Court in the matter of Rajkumar v. Ved Prakash, reported in 1982 JLJ 451 , and house of joint family could also not be treated as alternate accommodation in view of the decision of this Court in the matter of Sushila v. Maharaj Singh, reported in 1990 MPLJ 445 . Thus, the need of the plaintiff/landlord to start his business in his own premises for which they have no any other accommodation of his own then their need could not be said malafide and decree cannot be refused" 24. Thus, the need of the plaintiff/landlord to start his business in his own premises for which they have no any other accommodation of his own then their need could not be said malafide and decree cannot be refused" 24. Except the pleadings and oral evidence, the defendants have failed to file any documents to show that the business of the plaintiff with his father, brother is a joint business. According to defendants also plaintiff and his other family members are doing different business for the purpose of income tax and sales tax. If they are doing separate business, then how it can be their joint business, this nothing but that all the family members are doing their business in their own properties. 25. Learned senior counsel Shri V.K. Jain appearing of defendant no. 1 contended that the plaintiff used to sit in his own shop as well as in the shop of his brothers. If the brothers are having good and cordial relations, then in the emergency or requirement, one can sit in another's shop. For that, it cannot be presumed that they have joint business. 26. The plaintiff has established that in Saatha Bazar, he cannot start his business of dry-fruits because said market is mainly a market of cloth business. It is also settled law that the plaintiff is best judge to decide as to which place is suitable for his business. The defendant cannot insist that the plaintiff can start the business at other place which is available to him. under section 12(1)(f), decree can be granted if the plaintiff is not having alternative and suitable accommodation to start his business. Therefore, in the area where the main business of cloth market is there, it cannot be said that the plaintiff can start his business of dry-fruits and in the building which is a building belonging to joint family. In case of Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem Machinery & Co., (2000) 1 SCC 679 , the Supreme Court of India has held as under that the landlord is the best judge to decide suitability of accommodation:- 10. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while formulating the first substantial question of law proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff landlord admitted that there were a number of plots, shops and houses in his possession. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while formulating the first substantial question of law proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff landlord admitted that there were a number of plots, shops and houses in his possession. We have been taken through the judgments of the courts below and we do not find any such admission. It is true that the plaintiff landlord in his evidence stated that there were a number of other shops and houses belonging to him but he made a categorical statement that his said houses and shops were not vacant and that the suit premises is suitable for his business purpose. It is a settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. In case of Suit Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal, (2005) 8 SCC 252 , the Supreme Court of India has also held as under:- It was held that it cannot be said that a person who is already having a business at one place cannot expand his business at any other place in the country. It is true that the landlords have their business spreading over Chennai and Hyderabad and if they wanted to expand their business at Calicut it cannot be said to be unnatural thereby denying the eviction of the tenant from the premises in question. It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business. However, the trial court held in favour of the appellant tenant. But the appellate court as well as the High Court after scrutinising the evidence on record, reversed the finding of the trial court and held that the need of establishing the business at Calicut by the landlords cannot be said to be lacking in bona fides. 27. However, the trial court held in favour of the appellant tenant. But the appellate court as well as the High Court after scrutinising the evidence on record, reversed the finding of the trial court and held that the need of establishing the business at Calicut by the landlords cannot be said to be lacking in bona fides. 27. So far as the shop situated at Yashwant Niwas Road is concerned, that shop is in the name of plaintiff's wife, but it is situated in the residential area, therefore, it is not suitable for the business of dry-fruits. At the time of filing of the plaint, it was only a plot. In case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, (2001) 2 SCC 604 , the Supreme Court of India has held that 10. We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding as to the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. If every subsequent development during the post-petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow-process system subsists. During 23 years, after the landlord moved for eviction on the ground that his son needed the building, neither the landlord nor his son is expected to remain idle without doing any work, lest, joining any new assignment or starting any new work would be at the peril of forfeiting his requirement to occupy the building. It is a stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from the building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by subsequent developments during the traditional lengthy longevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the gloss. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the gloss. It is pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation, merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendente lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period. In case of Hukum Chandra v. Nemi Chand Jain reported in 2019 (1) JLJ 1 (SC) the Supreme Court of India has held that right of the parties stands crystallized on the date of institution of the suit. 28. In view of the foregoing discussion, the first appellate court has rightly granted the decree under section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 hence the question of law so framed is answered against the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.