JUDGMENT : Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J. This second appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff - Daduram Gupta (now dead, through LRs) challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in regular civil appeal No.20-A/2009 reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008 passed by Civil Judge Class - I, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in civil suit No.10-A/2006, whereby trial court decreed the appellant/plaintiff's suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement of plaintiff's son - Rajeev Gupta to start kirana business available under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and in civil appeal filed by respondent/defendant/tenant, first appellate Court dismissed the suit. 2. In short the facts are that the original plaintiff - Daduram Gupta instituted a suit for eviction against the respondent/defendant with the allegations that the defendant is tenant in the disputed shop admeasuring 11' X 14' on rent of Rs.900/- per month. Despite making several demands and even after service of notice dated 28.04.2006 (Ex.P/1) the defendant did not pay the monthly rent. It is also alleged that the rented shop is required for bonafide need of plaintiff's son - Rajeev Gupta for doing kirana business and there is no other alternative suitable vacant accommodation available with the plaintiff. On inter alia allegations the suit was filed. 3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the monthly rate of rent is Rs.450/- p.m. and the defendant has not committed any default in making payment of rent. It is also contended that son of plaintiff is already doing business and the alleged need is not bonafide. It is also contended that there are several other alternative accommodations available with the plaintiff in the township of Pipariya. On interalia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. In support of his submissions the plaintiff examined himself -Daduram Gupta (PW-1), Rajeev Gupta (PW-2) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/3). The defendant also examined himself-Purushottam Tawri (DW-1), P.M. Mourya (DW-2), Bhuvneshwar Paliwal (DW-3) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.D/1 to D/4c). On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. In support of his submissions the plaintiff examined himself -Daduram Gupta (PW-1), Rajeev Gupta (PW-2) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/3). The defendant also examined himself-Purushottam Tawri (DW-1), P.M. Mourya (DW-2), Bhuvneshwar Paliwal (DW-3) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.D/1 to D/4c). After hearing the parties trial court held that the monthly rate of rent is Rs.900/- per month and the plaintiff is in need of the shop for starting business by his son Rajeev Gupta and there is no other alternative suitable vacant accommodation available with the plaintiff in the township of Pipariya, accordingly decreed the suit on the ground under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, however refused to pass decree on the ground under Section12(1)(a) of the Act vide its judgment and decree dtd. 23.10.2008. 5. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the respondent/defendant preferred regular civil appeal, however no cross- objection was filed by the appellant/plaintiff in respect of the ground available under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of trial court and dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree dated31.10.2011. 6. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court, the appellant/plaintiff preferred second appeal, which was admitted for final hearing on 06.05.2014 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, the First Appellate Court has committed gross illegality in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent/tenant totally ignoring the fact that the appellant-landlord is running a Kirana shop in the tenanted premises and therefore has bona fide need for commercial purposes of the tenanted premises ? 2. Whether, the lower Appellate Court erred in not granting the decree under Section 12(1)(a) and Section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and has wrongly condoned the delay without deposit of the arrears of rent ?" 7. 2. Whether, the lower Appellate Court erred in not granting the decree under Section 12(1)(a) and Section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and has wrongly condoned the delay without deposit of the arrears of rent ?" 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that by adducing sufficient oral and documentary evidence, plaintiff had proved that his son is in bonafide need of the suit shop for starting kirana business and there is noother alterative accommodation available with him in the township of Pipariya and trial court upon due consideration of the evidence available on record, decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement available under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, but first appellate Court without recording any finding to the effect that the plaintiff or his son is in possession of other alternative suitable accommodation of their own in the township of Pipariya, reversed the judgment and decree of trial court and dismissed the suit. He submits that although in written statement the defendant raised the dispute about rate of rent by alleging it to be Rs.450/- p.m., but it was decided by trial court holding the rate of rent to be Rs.900/- p.m., therefore, the defendant was bound to pay monthly rent @ Rs.900/-, which has not been deposited by him during pendency of civil appeal before first appellate Court, which was sufficient to pass decree on the ground of defaults available under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. He further submits that undisputedly the defendant was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff - Dadu Ram Gupta and defendant was claiming himself to be owner on the basis of oral agreement of sale which has rightly been discarded by courts below and it is an apparent fact on record that on the basis of alleged agreement of sale no suit for specific performance has been filed, therefore, he submits that the plaintiff was entitled for decree of eviction on the ground of denial of title also provided under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. With these submissions he prays for allowing the second appeal. 8. With these submissions he prays for allowing the second appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent/defendant supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court and submitsthat as the plaintiff's son Rajeev Gupta was already doing business in his shop which is owned by him, therefore, first appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit for eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act. He also submits that trial court upon due consideration of the material available on record dismissed the suit on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act and despite availability of opportunity the plaintiff did not file any cross objection before first appellate Court, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for decree of eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. With these submissions he prays for dismissal of second appeal. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. From perusal of the judgment and decree passed by trial Court it is clear that trial Court vide paragraph 15 of its judgment, has extensively considered oral testimony of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff and defendant and found that the plaintiff's son is in need of the suit shop and there is no other alternative accommodation available in the township of Pipariya and consequently decreed the suit. However for the reasons mentioned in the judgment, dismissed the suit on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, after holding the monthly rate of rent to be Rs.900/- per month. 11. A complete reading of the judgment passed by first appellate Court shows that although it has passed a very lengthy judgment consisting of 74 paragraphs, but nowhere has said that the plaintiff is having other alternative suitable vacant accommodation in the township of Pipariya. 11. A complete reading of the judgment passed by first appellate Court shows that although it has passed a very lengthy judgment consisting of 74 paragraphs, but nowhere has said that the plaintiff is having other alternative suitable vacant accommodation in the township of Pipariya. In paragraph 59 of the impugned judgment, first appellate Court has also considered a factthat plaintiff's son Rajeev Gupta is doing business in a shop, but that shop has been admitted by defendant's witness Sudhir Agrawal (DW-4) in para 2 of his statement, to be belonging to one Suresh Raghuvanshi and on the premise that the plaintiff is doing business in that shop, dismissed the suit holding thereby that since the plaintiff is already doing business, he cannot be said to be in bonafide need of the rented shop and even the appellate court has also in paragraph 65 of its judgment observed that there is no other alternative suitable accommodation available with the plaintiff, but only on the premise that he is already doing business and that the plaintiff has not been able to show that the existing shop in which he is doing business does not belong to him, dismissed the suit, whereas entire burden was on the defendant/tenant to prove availability of alternative accommodation owned by the plaintiff. 12. Upon due consideration of the entire material available on record and in the considered opinion of this Court, the reasoning assigned by first appellate Court for declining the decree of eviction on the ground under section 12(1)(f) of the Act, does not appear to be legal and acceptable. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court so far as the ground of eviction available under Section 12(1)(f) is concerned, is not sustainable. Hence, the substantial question of law no.1 is decided in affirmative and in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. 13. The substantial question of law no.2 is in respect of ground of eviction available under section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Due to dispute raised by the defendant in the written statement regarding monthly rate of rent, trial court while deciding issue no.1(b) held that the rate of rent is Rs.900/- permonth. 13. The substantial question of law no.2 is in respect of ground of eviction available under section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Due to dispute raised by the defendant in the written statement regarding monthly rate of rent, trial court while deciding issue no.1(b) held that the rate of rent is Rs.900/- permonth. Although the same was challenged by filing civil appeal, but after decision on the question of rate of rent, the defendant was liable to pay monthly rent @ Rs.900/-, which was not deposited by the defendant, which has also been observed by first appellate Court in paragraph 35 to 36 of its judgment. However, even without deposit of the arrears of rent condoned the delay in making deposit of the rent, by the impugned judgment itself, whereas no rent was paid/deposited even upto passing of the impugned judgment and decree. It is well settled that the defendant cannot be permitted to occupy the premises without making payment of rent and he is bound to pay/deposit the rent during pendency of suit as well as appeal, as provided under Section 13(1) of the Act. As the defendant has not deposited the rent during pendency of civil appeal, therefore, in my considered opinion he is liable to be evicted on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the substantial question of law no.2 is also decided in affirmative and in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. 14. It is also apparent from the record that although the defendant has taken the plea of oral agreement of sale and consequently denied title of the plaintiff, but no suit for specific performance has been filed by him, therefore, both the Courts below have rightly negated the plea of oral agreement of sale taken by him. 15. Resultantly, second appeal stands allowed and by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court, the judgment and decree passed by trial court is restored with the modification that the plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction also on the ground available under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act and suit stands decreed on both the grounds. 16. With the aforesaid, this second appeal is allowed and disposed of. 17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.