through the plaint averments, various paragraphs of the written statements as well as the statements of the defendants and specifically referred to the documents Exs.D-1 to 6 to impress that these are various communications between the parties including letters for rent. According to him, these documents would show that it is due compliance of the mandate of previous written consent and subsequent notice of induction of sub-tenant under Section 14 of the Act of 1961. It was submitted that since vide Exs.D-1 to D-5, rent was accepted by the plaintiff's father, therefore, the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1961 stood complied with and therefore the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in granting decree in favour of the plaintiff. He relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Kai Khushroo Bezonjee Capadia v. Bai Jerbai Hirjibhoy Warden and another 1, M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur and others 2 and Vinod Kumar Agrawal v. Chandrakant Pandey and another 3. By referring to various paragraphs of the statements of the plaintiffs and the defendants, Mr. Bajaj would finally contend that the finding recorded by the first appellate Court that the plaintiffs have no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in the township of Raipur for their need is not only perverse, but also contrary to record, as there is sufficient material available on record to hold that they have alternative suitable accommodation in their possession for their alleged need, as such, the decree under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 based on
