Appeal No 99176
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 2111976 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No 415 of 1971 section Choudhury DN Mishra OC Mathur and Shri Narain for the appellant
GL Sanghi VK Sanghi RK Sanghi and SN Khanduja for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER J
A suit for eviction of an accommodation from the tenant to whom it had been let for residential and non residential 768 purposes resulted in dismissal by the trial Judge
But in an appeal the final court of fact took the view that the landlord respondent was entitled to eviction
The tenant challenged the appellate decree before the High Court in Second Appeal without success and has therefore come up to this Court with this appeal by special leave
A short point has been raised which deserves only a short answer
Since we agree with the High Court which in turn has agreed with the first appellate court our judgment can afford to be brief
A statement of necessary facts may now be given
The landlord had let out the premises which is a storeyed building to be tenant as per exhibit P 1 of 1955
The signif icant clause in the lease deed runs thus 1 XXX 2
I take your house for my own use ie for opening a cloth shop and for residential purposes and I will not sublet your house to anybody
XXX XXX XXX XXX
 The tenant has thus put the building to busi ness and residential purposes
The landlord who is an M Sc claimed the building back on the score that he wanted to run a medical store on the ground floor a non residential purpose and stay on the first floor with his wife a residential purpose
Thus the acommo dation was let out for dual purposes was being used presumably for these requirements and was being claimed back by the landlord for the twin purposes mentioned above
The final court of fact has held that the landlord needs the building for his chemist s shop and for his residential use
The High Court in Second Appeal has upheld this finding and added that the finding as to his bonafide requirement was rightly not challenged before me 
The conclusion that the courts have reached is the only conclusion possible on the evidence on record in the light of the circumstances appearing
 This statement by the High Court that the bonafide requirement of the landlord was not challenged before it has not been questioned in the memorandum of appeal to this Court
It must therefore be taken that the bonafide need of the landlord is validly made out
The short point that survives is as to whether the composite purposes of the lease would put it out of the ground set out for eviction under section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961
The said Act defines accommodation  thus  accommodation  means any building or part of a building whether residential or non residential and includes XX XXX XXX
 769 It follows that an accommodation can be resi dential non residential or both
section 12 bars an action of eviction of a tenant from any accommodation except on one or more of the grounds set out therein
section 121 e and f bearing on the present case may be appropriately extracted here 12
Restriction on eviction of tenents 1 a to d x x x x x e that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held
and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommoda tion of his own in the occupation in the city or town concerned f that the accommodation 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 or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasona bly suitable non residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned
XXX XXX XXX
 The residential portion is a part of the building and is an accommodation by defini tion
The non residential portion is also a part of the building and is an accommoda tion by definition
The lease has been given for residential as well as non residential purposes
The landlord is entitled to evic tion of the residential portion if he makes out a bonafide residential requirement
Likewise he is entitled to eviction of the non residential portion which is an accommoda tion if he makes out a non residential requirement
We have already found that the final court of fact affirmed by the High Court has found in favour of the landlord regarding his residential as well as non residential requirements
Therefore nothing more can be done in defence of the tenant in the light of the present law
Counsel contended that in a decision of this Court viz section Sanyal vs Gian Chand1 it has been held that it is not permissible for the court to split up a contract in an eviction proceeding
We agree
There is no question of splitting up of the contract in the present case as is abundantly plain from what we have stated
The contract was integral but had dual purposes
The landlord has put forward dual requirements which neatly fit into section 121e and f
The conse quence is inevitable that the eviction order has to be upheld
1  770 It is seep that the tenant has been doing a thriving cloth business with goodwill attached to it for well knigh 30 years
It is therefore but fair that the
tenant is given sometime to rehabilitate himself by securing an alter native but suitable accommodation
In our towns where scarcity of accommodation is the rule it is not that easy to secure alternative premises
Taking due note of this reali ty we direct that while dismissing the appeal the eviction order shall not be put into execution before 1st January 1978
Parties will bear their respective costs
SR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Under sub clauses e and f of section 121 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 a landlord can evict a tenant if the residential and the non residential accommodation respectively let out to the latter is required bona fide by him for occupation as a residence and for the purpose of continuing or starting his business
Accommoda tion under the Act means any building or part of a building whether residential or non residential
The appellant tenant was inducted in by the respondent in 1955 for the dual purposes of residential and non resi dential purpose of running a cloth shop
The landlord bona fide required the building for his residence and also for starting his business of running a Chemist shop
The Evic tion Suit filed by him was dismissed by the trial court but the appellant and the High Court ranted him the eviction decree
Discussing the appeal by special leave the Court
HELD The residential portion as well as a non residen tial portion are parts of the building and each is an accom modation by definition
The landlord is entitled to evic tion of the accommodation if he makes out a bona fide residential and non residential requirement of the portions
In the instant case the contract was integral but had dual purpose
The landlord has put forward dual requirements which neatly fit into section 121e and f of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961
The findings of the appellate Court regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord not having been challenged in the High Court and in this Court in the memorandum of Appeal the conse quence viz eviction is inevitable
769 E G section Sanyal vs Gianchand   distinguished
The Court however granted time to the appellants for vacating the building till 1 1 1978 in terms of equity