JUDGMENT Sanjay K Agrawal, J. - This second appeal was firstly admitted on 25/07/1994 by formulating the following substantial question of law :- "1. Whether the Courts below committed an error in ignoring the ground of disclaimer of title because that plea was taken by the appellants only by way of amendment, but not in the original plaint ?" Thereafter, again by order dated 16/09/2019 read with order dated 18/10/2019, an additional substantial question of law was framed, which is as follows :- "2. Whether both the Courts below were justified in not granting decree in favour of the plaintiffs under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Chhattisgarh Accomodation Control Act, 1961 after having recorded a finding that they have no other alternative reasonably suitable accomodation for their non-residential purpose of their own at Raigarh ?" (For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status and ranking shown in the suit before the trial Court.) 2. Plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 87-A/89 for eviction, arrears of rent and damages against original defendant namely Sagarmal Beriwal stating inter alia that suit accomodation i.e. House No. 193/1 situated at Ward No. 17, Sadar Hatri Road, Hatri Chowk, Raigarh, of which plaintiffs have acquired title after the death of their father namely Sagarmal Agrawal, was let out by the plaintiffs to the defendant for non-residential and business purpose for monthly tenancy of Rs. 37/-. Later on, defendant - Sagarmal Beriwal shifted his business to his residential house and the suit accomodation was not used by him. Thereafter, when plaintiff No. 1 became major and required the suit accomodation bonafidely as he had no suitably reasonable alternative accomodation in the township of Raigarh, the defendant declined to deliver the possession of the suit accomodation to him for which a legal notice was served upon the defendant terminating his tenancy. It was further pleaded that some portion in the backside of the suit accomodation was let out to one Mahabir Prasad Agrawal and after getting the vacant possession of the whole suit accomodation, plaintiff No. 1 would set up his business in the suit accomodation after getting necessary repairs done. 3. It was further pleaded that some portion in the backside of the suit accomodation was let out to one Mahabir Prasad Agrawal and after getting the vacant possession of the whole suit accomodation, plaintiff No. 1 would set up his business in the suit accomodation after getting necessary repairs done. 3. Original defendant - Sagarmal Beriwal filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations stating that suit accomodation was let out on rent by H.U.F. Khyaliram Gajanand to H.U.F. Ramchand Kashiram, however, he did not specifically deny the title/ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit accomodation stating that in a suit for eviction, question of title is not relevant and further pleaded that tenancy was on annual basis. 4. Plaintiffs proceeded ex-parte before the trial Court and an ex-parte decree under Sections 12 (1) (f) and 12 (1) (h) of the M.P./C.G. Accomodation Control Act, 1961 was passed but ultimately, it was set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial Court for adjudication on merits and thereafter, learned trial Court framed as many as nine issues and upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record vide judgment and decree dated 07/03/1991 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs though holding that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between plaintiffs and defendant and that plaintiffs are owners of the suit accomodation and they have no other alternative accomodation in the township of Raigarh in their possession and the need of plaintiff No. 1 for the suit accomodation is not denied. 5. On Civil Appeal No. 17-A/91 being preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, learned first appellate Court upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs by judgment and decree dated 08/10/1993. During the pendency of the first appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 was filed by the defendant stating that plaintiff No. 1 has been placed in possession of the suit shop namely 'Mohan Medical Store' on 13/03/1991 therefore, the need of the plaintiff has come to an end, if any. The said application was also allowed by the first appellate Court. 6. The said application was also allowed by the first appellate Court. 6. Questioning the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the CPC in which first substantial question of law was framed on 25/07/1994 and the appeal was admitted and later on, an additional substantial question of law was framed by order dated 16/09/2019 read with order dated 18/10/2019, which are set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 7. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in holding that plaintiff No. 1 has other reasonably suitable alternative accomodation in the township of Raigarh that fulfills his bonafide need i.e. 'Mohan Medical Store' which has been vacated and plaintiff No. 1 has acquired its possession on 13/03/1991, therefore, his bonafide need has come to an end. He would further submit that defendant has taken the plaintiff by surprise as it has not been pleaded that the shop which allegedly fell in the share of the plaintiff is reasonably suitable for the purpose for which plaintiff No. 1 required the suit accomodation. Merely showing that plaintiff has got some other vacant premises in his possession will not be sufficient to negative the plaintiff's claim as the suit accomodation is situated at Ward No. 17, Sadar Bazar Road, Hatri Chowk whereas the suit shop vacated by 'Mohan Medical Store' may be located in the same vicinity but is not suitable for the requirements of plaintiff No. 1 and moreover, is much smaller in size than the suit accomodation and the convenience and safety of the landlord is a more relevant factor. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would also submit that the first appellate Court is also not justified in granting decree in favour of defendant under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Accomodation Control Act as the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff in his written statement. 8. None appears for respondents/defendants though served twice. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, considered his submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Answer to 1st substantial question of law :- 10. 8. None appears for respondents/defendants though served twice. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, considered his submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Answer to 1st substantial question of law :- 10. First question for consideration would be whether the first appellate Court was justified in not granting decree under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Accomodation Control Act in favour of plaintiffs. 11. Learned first appellate Court has clearly observed that plaintiffs are not entitled for decree under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Accomodation Control Act as the plea based on Section 12 (1) (c) of the Accomodation Control Act regarding denial of landlord's title has not been inserted by the defendant in his written statement. 12. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Majati Subbarao v. P.V.K. Krishna Rao (deceased) by Lrs., (1989) AIR SC 2187 , has clearly held that a denial of title in the course of eviction petition constitutes a ground for eviction provided the denial is not bona fide and it is not necessary that in order to constitute a ground for eviction the denial of title must be anterior to the filing of the eviction petition. It was further held that to insist that a denial of title in the written statement cannot be taken advantage of in that suit but can be taken advantage of only in a subsequent suit to be filed by the landlord would only lead to unnecessary multiplicity of legal proceedings as the landlord would be obliged to file a second suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of forfeiture entitled by the tenant's denial of his character as a tenant in the written statement. As such, learned first appellate Court has rightly held that plaintiffs are not entitled for decree of eviction under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Accomodation Control Act as the plaintiffs failed to amend the plaint and did not raise any specific plea and ground of denial of landlord's title as ground of eviction under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Accomodation Control Act. Answer to 2nd substantial question of law :- 13. Answer to 2nd substantial question of law :- 13. Plaintiffs claimed the suit accomodation for the bonafide need of plaintiff No. 1 namely Murarilal for his non-residential purpose stating inter alia that they have no other reasonably suitable non-residential accomodation in their possession in the township of Raigarh, as such, the original defendant namely Sagarmal Beriwal deserves to be evicted from the suit accomodation by granting decree under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Accomodation Control Act. 14. Section 12 (1) (f) of the Chhattisgarh Accomodation Control Act, 1961, provides as under:- "12. Restriction on eviction of tenants.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accomodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: (a) XXX XXX XXX (b) XXX XXX XXX (c) XXX XXX XXX (d) XXX XXX XXX (e) XXX XXX XXX (f) that the accomodation 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 of for any person for whose benefit the accomodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable nonresidential accomodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned." 15. Thus, in order to get a decree for eviction under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Accomodation Control Act, the following conditions must be satisfied :- (i) that the accomodation is let for nonresidential purposes, (ii) that the accomodation so let is required bonafidely by the landlord, (iii) that the requirement is for the purpose of continuing or starting business, (iv) that suit business is his or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters or that of any person for whose benefit the accomodation is held, as the case may be, (v) that either of landlord or any other person for whose benefit the accomodation is held, as the case may be, is the owner of the premises. (vi) that the landlord or such other person, has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accomodation of his own in the city of town concerned. 16. (vi) that the landlord or such other person, has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accomodation of his own in the city of town concerned. 16. Learned trial Court, upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that plaintiff No. 1 - Murarilal Agrawal is the owner of the suit accomodation and he has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accomodation in his possession in the township of Raigarh, but further held that the need of plaintiff No. 1 is not bonafide as he has got decree for eviction against the other tenant namely "Mohan Medical Stores" in Raigarh and thereby, plaintiff No. 1's need has come to an end. On appeal being preferred by the plaintiffs, learned first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court on this ground under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Accomodation Control Act holding that plaintiffs are not entitled for decree for possession. 17. During the pendency of the first appeal, defendant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CPC along with a copy of warrant of possession containing endorsement of delivery of possession of the shop i.e. 'Mohan Medical Stores' to the plaintiffs on 13/03/1991 and also filed a map of the suit shop which admeasures 17="x32" and is situated at Ward No. 8. The First appellate Court allowed that application while delivering the impugned judgment and relied upon those documents straightway to hold that plaintiffs got the alternative accomodation in their possession after one shop admeasuring 17="x32" is vacated by 'Mohan Medical Stores'. 18. The question for consideration would be whether the first appellate Court is justified in granting defendant's application Under Order 41 rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CPC by relying upon the aforesaid documents and thereby, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs. 19. In my considered opinion, learned first appellate Court, after admitting the additional documents under Section 41 Rule 27 of the CPC filed by the defendants, ought to have given opportunity to the plaintiffs to rebut those documents and granting the said application filed by the defendant by placing reliance upon those additional documents to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiffs is in violation of the principlesof natural justice. Not only this, the first appellate Court held that plaintiffs ought to have pleaded and established that the accomodation of the shop which has fallen vacant from 'Mohan Medical Stores' is not suitable for their business, which has not been pleaded by amending the plaint, as such, he has an alternative accomodation in his possession at the township of Raigarh, therefore, decree for eviction under Section (12) (1) (f) of the Accomodation Control Act can not be granted against the defendant. 20. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222 , with regard to the availability of an alternative accomodation with the landlord, has held as under :- "The availability of an alternative accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14, which speaks of nonavailability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come." 21. In the matter of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors., (1981) 3 SCC 36 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that landlord does not have unfettered right to choose the premises, but merely showing that the landlord has some other vacant premises in his possession may not be sufficient to negative the landlord's claim, if the vacant premises were not suitable for the purpose for which he required the premises. 22. Reverting to the facts of the case in hand, it is quite vivid that defendant did not plead in his written statement that plaintiffs have other alternative accomodation at their possession which satisfies their need and only during crossexamination, he introduced the fact that the shop earlier rented to 'Mohan Medical Stores' for which decree for eviction has already been granted to the plaintiffs and in the first appeal, he filed additional documents on 13/03/1991 supporting the fact that possession of the shop let out to 'Mohan Medical Stores' admeasuring 17="x32" has been handed over to the plaintiffs. 23. Though the defendant has filed documents demonstrating the delivery of possession of shop admeasuring 17="x32" to the plaintiffs during the pendency of the appeal, but he did not introduce any amendment in the written statement stating that the accomodation of the shop of 'Mohan Medical Stores' which has fallen vacant and in possession of the plaintiffs now is not only an alternative accomodation but it is also reasonably suitable for the non-residential purpose of the plaintiffs as provided in Section 12 (1) (f) of the Accomodation Control Act. 24. The above-stated facts must not only be expressly pleaded but also be established firmly. 24. The above-stated facts must not only be expressly pleaded but also be established firmly. Merely showing that plaintiffs have got possession of a vacant accomodation during the pendency of the appeal, defendant cannot be discharged of his burden to plead and establish the said fact by raising necessary pleading and proving the same by leading appropriate evidence of clinching nature. 25. In the instant case, plaintiffs pleaded that they need the suit accomodation admeasuring 62.6"x17" feet (A to H) situated at Sadar Bazar Road as shown in the plaint for non-residential purpose of plaintiff No. 1 namely Murarilal Agrawal and they do not have any other alternative accomodation which is reasonably suitable for their use. The alternative accomodation which has fallen vacant admeasures only 17"x32" feet and is not situated in the locality in which the suit accomodation is but is situated in a different area though in the nearby place. All these facts were required to be pleaded and established to demonstrate that plaintiffs not only have an alternative accomodation in their possession but that is also reasonably suitable for the bonafide need of the plaintiffs, which the defendant has failed to plead by amending the written statement and only filed an application along with the additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC which was allowed and relied upon in voilation of principles of natural justice and as such, the first appellate Court has clearly erred in placing burden on the plaintiffs. The defendants were required not only to plead but were also required to establish that plaintiff has got possession of vacant accomodation, which is a reasonably suitable alternative accomodation for his bona fide need. In absence of that pleading and proof, decree under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Accomodation control Act cannot be refused to the plaintiffs. 26. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated discussion, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as affirmed by the first appellate Court is hereby set aside and the second appeal is allowed. It is ordered and decreed that defendant (now his Lrs.) will deliver the peaceful possession of the suit accomodation shown in the map annexed with the plaint (be made part of decree) House No. 193/1 situated at Ward No. 17, Sadar Hatri Road, Hatri Chowk, Raigarh,) within one month from today. No order as to cost(s). 27. It is ordered and decreed that defendant (now his Lrs.) will deliver the peaceful possession of the suit accomodation shown in the map annexed with the plaint (be made part of decree) House No. 193/1 situated at Ward No. 17, Sadar Hatri Road, Hatri Chowk, Raigarh,) within one month from today. No order as to cost(s). 27. Decree be drawn-up accordingly.