Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal is as under :-

"Whether the first appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable in law ignoring the full Bench judgment of the MP High Court in the matter of Bhagwan Singh Ramcharan v. Mst. Kallo Maula Shah & Others; reported in 1977 MPLJ 583, in which it has been held that the order passed on the application under Section 18(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act is appellable as a decree."

2. The appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide need and for reconstruction. The suit was compromised by the parties in Lok Adalat and compromise decree was passed with a condition that the tenant was required to vacate the suit premises and to hand over the vacant possession to the landlord/plaintiff within 15 days for reconstruction and thereafter, the landlord was required to raise construction and after reconstruction, one shop would be let out to the defendant/tenant on monthly rent of 1500/- to 1700/-. The landlord was required to complete the construction within six months. The defendant had vacated the said premises and reconstruction has already been made, but claim of the defendant was that he was not given possession of the suit premises as per compromise decree.

3. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC seeking relief of re-entry and damages. Relief under Section 18 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act of 1961') was also claimed.

4. The trial Court by its order dated 18.9.2015 allowed the application for re-entry and damages to the extent of Rs. 1,02,000/- was granted.

5. Feeling aggrieved against the order granting right of re-entry and damages under Section 18(3) of the Act of 1961, the appellant/plaintiff filed first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court by its impugned order rejected the same holding the first appeal to be not maintainable in law.

6. Questioning that order holding the appeal to be not maintainable in law, the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed, in which substantial question of law has been framed in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

7. Mr. Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that against the order passed by the trial Court on the application under Section 18(3) of the Act of 1961 first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC was maintainable and therefore, the learned Third Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the appeal holding to be not maintainable in law. He would further submit that the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Bhagwan Singh Ramcharan v. Mst. Kallo Maula Shah and others, 1977 MPLJ 583 has struck similar proposition as still that judgment is holding the field and it is binding judgment, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the First Appellate Court for hearing on merits.

8. On the other hand, Mr. B.P.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant, would submit that the First Appellate Court is absolutely justified in holding the appeal to be not maintainable, therefore, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions made therein and gone through the records of the Courts below with utmost circumspection.

10. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Section 18(3) of the Act of 1961, is appealable as a decree or not.

11. The issue raised and involved in this appeal is no longer res-intregra and it stands concluded by the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhagwan Singh Ramcharan (supra), in which