JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by defendant No.1/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.13/2020 by the 8th Additional District Judge, District Ujjain affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2020 passed in Civil Suit No.16-A/2018 by the 8th Civil Judge, Class-I, District Ujjain whereby the claim of plaintiff/respondent No.1 for eviction of the defendants on ground enumerated under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred as 'the Act, 1961') had been decreed. 3. The plaintiff instituted an action against the defendants for their eviction from the suit premises which is a shop measuring 1.86 meter x 8.36 meter situated in house No.152, Gopal Mandir Marg, Bada Sarafa, Ujjain submitting that Gendalal, father of defendants had taken the suit shop on rent from him, that upon his death 10 years ago the defendants have continued in occupation of the suit shop, that plaintiff is carrying on business of a saree shop from the shop adjoining the suit shop and from part on the first floor, that the said shop is extremely small and insufficient for his business, that he and his family members are also residing on the first floor and have to go through their shop to the first floor, that due to insufficiency of space plaintiff and his workers are not able to sit properly in their shop and run business therefrom, that the suit shop is hence bona fide required by him for extending his shop and opening up a modern showroom therefrom and that he is not possessed of any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of his own in the town. 4. 4. The defendants No.1 and 4 contested the plaintiff's claim by filing their separate written statements submitting inter alia that the partition between the shops was in existence even at the time when the suit shop was taken on rent, that the measurements of shop have not been correctly shown, that plaintiff is not carrying on any business of sale of saree, that the suit shop had been taken on rent from Gopalji, that upon purchase of the entire property by Shantilal he started recovering rent from the tenants, that on his instructions defendants' father started paying rent to Shailendra Kumar, that plaintiff is not his landlord and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and plaintiff, that the suit has been filed for increasing rent and that plaintiff is possessed of numerous reasonably suitable alternate accommodations of his own in the town. 5. Upon evaluation of the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by both the parties the trial Court held that plaintiff has proved that he is the landlord and defendants are his tenants in the suit shop, that the suit shop is bona fide required by him for expansion of his business and that he is not possessed of any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of his own in the town. In consequence plaintiff's claim was decreed. The said judgment and decree has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court in First Appeal having been preferred by defendant No.1 against the same. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are erroneous and contrary to the facts on record. The plaintiff has himself admitted that he is having one more shop on the first floor and is doing business from two floors in the same building. These admissions have been illegally excluded. Though the plaintiff has pleaded that the suit shop is required by him for expansion of his business but the said need has not been proved by him by his evidence. The need projected by plaintiff is only a felt need and is not a need in presenti and cannot be regarded as a bona fide need. The shop from which plaintiff is doing business has been suppressed by him. The need projected by plaintiff is only a felt need and is not a need in presenti and cannot be regarded as a bona fide need. The shop from which plaintiff is doing business has been suppressed by him. He is also possessed of various alternate accommodations of his own in the town but neither have they been pleaded nor have been shown to be not available with him. The property is stated to have been inherited by plaintiff from his father but there is no proof as regards attornment by defendants in his favour. The plaintiff has not established the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and defendants. Various important questions put by defendants to plaintiff in cross-examination have been illegally declined by the trial Court. It is hence submitted that the impugned judgment and decree being illegal deserve to be set aside. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta V/s. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta reported in (1999) 6 SCC 222 , Hasmat Rai V/s. Raghunath Prasad reported in 1981 MPLJ 610 , Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari V/s. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate reported in (1996) 6 SCC 373 and of this Court in Damodar V/s. Nandram reported in 1960 MPLJ 925 . 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The father of plaintiff namely Shantilal Jain was admittedly the owner and landlord of the suit shop and defendants were his tenants therein. The contention of defendants is that upon death of Shantilal, his other son Shailendra Kumar Jain had become the landlord of the suit premises and had been taking rent from them hence plaintiff is not their landlord. Shailendra Kumar Jain has been examined as PW-2 and he has specifically stated that in a partition effected in the family the suit shop has been allotted to the share of plaintiff who is the sole owner thereof. He as well as plaintiff have categorically stated that the said fact was communicated to the defendants of which there is no denial. In the rent receipt Ex.D-68 plaintiff is recorded to be the landlord of the suit shop which defendants admit. Thereunder rent was paid by defendants to plaintiff. DW-1 Vijay has stated that he has paid rent to plaintiff upto 31.03.2016. In the rent receipt Ex.D-68 plaintiff is recorded to be the landlord of the suit shop which defendants admit. Thereunder rent was paid by defendants to plaintiff. DW-1 Vijay has stated that he has paid rent to plaintiff upto 31.03.2016. Since plaintiff and his witnesses have categorically stated that the suit shop had been allotted to plaintiff in a partition and defendant No.1 has himself admitted payment of rent to plaintiff, there has been a valid attornment by defendants in favour of plaintiff in view of which relationship of landlord and tenant between them has been clearly established. 8. The plaintiff has pleaded and has led evidence to prove that he is running his business in a small shop and defendants are tenants in the suit shop and there is a partition between both the shops. His need is that he wants to expand his business and amalgamate both the shops so that he may have a bigger shop for running his business as the shop from which he is presently carrying on business is wholly insufficient for him. He is also carrying on business from a part of the house on the first floor in which his family is also residing. The said need is definitely a need in presenti and is not a felt need. As plaintiff is finding it insufficient to carry on business in his shop, his need for getting the suit shop vacated and opening a bigger shop with a modern showroom cannot in any manner be said to be not bona fide. The shop in occupation of plaintiff is 6 ft. x 45 ft. whereas the shop in occupation of defendants is 6ft. x 72 ft. hence obviously if both the shops are combined the plaintiff would be able to run his business properly. The courts below have hence rightly upheld his need. 9. The alternate accommodations which defendants have contended to be available with plaintiff have not been proved by them to be so available, reasonable or being vacant. DW-1 Vijay has himself admitted that in the shop at V.D. Cloth Market brother of plaintiff namely Shailendra Kumar is carrying on business. No shop vacant in that premises has been shown. As per him in house No.154 there are two shops on the ground floor which are in occupation of tenants. Another brother of plaintiff is carrying on business therefrom. No shop vacant in that premises has been shown. As per him in house No.154 there are two shops on the ground floor which are in occupation of tenants. Another brother of plaintiff is carrying on business therefrom. No shop vacant has been shown. The said building as per the partition deed Ex.P/1 has been allotted in favour of plaintiff's brother Lalit Kumar. The same hence cannot be considered in respect of need of plaintiff. Likewise as per defendant No.1 himself, in house No.158 at Bada Sarafa uncle of plaintiff is carrying on business which property had been allotted to him in the partition. In a shop beneath Yuvraj Library Shantilal is carrying on business. Thus no vacant alternate accommodation available with plaintiff has been proved by defendants. Thus there was no necessity for plaintiff to plead as regards the alleged alternate accommodations which were not available with him at the time of institution of the suit or even subsequently. 10. From a perusal of deposition of plaintiff's witness it does not appear that the defendants were denied any opportunity of crossexamining the witnesses. The relevant questions were permitted to be put and irrelevant questions were denied. That was within the sole discretion of the trial Court and no prejudice is shown to have been caused to defendants for the questions which were not permitted. 11. Thus the judgments and decree passed by the courts below are based upon a proper evaluation of the material available on record. The findings recorded by them are perfectly just and legal and are supported by cogent evidence. No fault can be found with the same. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.