Judgment

PATHAK, J.:- This is a tenants appeal, by special leave, against a decree of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowing the landlords second appeal in a suit for eviction.

2. The respondent, as landlord, filed a suit for the eviction of the appellant tenant on the ground that the appellant had neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him. The plaint recited that the appellant had taken a portion of a shop and a verandah on the ground floor on rent at Rs. 150/- per month for the purpose of this cloth business, that the appellant had not paid the arrears of rent totalling Rs. 2,550/- for the period June 26, 1968 to October 11, 1969, and that he was, therefore, liable to eviction on the ground set forth in S. 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

3. In this written statement the appellant pleaded that the respondent had described the tenanted premises incorrectly, that in fact the premises consisted of an entire shop, a kotha, behind the shop and a verandah in front of the shop, that the expenditure on repairs to the premises undertaken by the appellant had to be adjusted against the arrears of rent and that the notice dated October 21, 1959. terminating the tenancy was invalid.

4. On receiving the writ on summons in the suit, the appellant deposited the arrears of rent in compliance with S. 13(1) of the Act, but further compliance with S. 13(1) was not effected inasmuch as the rent which should have been deposited regularly from month to month was not deposited for several months,

5. The trial Court found that the expenditure claimed by the appellant on repairing the premises had not been proved. It found further that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of S. 13(1) of the Act as he had failed to deposit the monthly rent regularly during the pendency of the suit. But it agreed with the appellant that the respondent had not correctly described the extent of the premises in the notice terminating the tenancy, and holding that the tenancy had not been validly terminated it dismissed the suit. The respondent filed an appeal, and that appeal was dismissed. The respondent then preferred a second appeal, and during the pendency of the appeal the High Court permitted the respondent to amend the plaint so that reference to the tenanted premises now included the entire accommodation claimed by the appellant. In consequence, the suit now related to that accommodation. Thereafter the High Court, by its judgment and decree D/- 12-10-1979 allowed the second appeal. It held that no notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy was required in view of the decision of this Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal (1980) 1 SCR 334 and it affirmed the finding of the subordinate Courts that the appellant had failed to prove payment for repairing the premises.

6. On a conspectus of the entire proceeding it would appear that the only ground on which the subordinate Courts dismissed the suit is that the notice dated October 21, 1969 did not validly terminate the tenancy as it referred to a part only of the tenanted premises, while the High Court, in second appeal, proceeded on the view that no notice terminating the tenancy was required at all and, therefore, after permitting the respondent to amend his plaint in order to bring the entire tenanted premises within the purview of the suit, it decreed the suit:

7. Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 provides:-

"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 any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :

(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the a