( 1 ) THIS reference has been made by Bhave, J. in the following circumstances. The appellant brought a suit against the respondent for ejectment under Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act), on the ground that the suit accommodation had become unsafe for human residence, unless extensive repairs were effected; that the suit accommodation was required for the use of some relations of the plaintiff; that the defendant had sublet the suit premises; and that the defendant had caused substantial damage to the premises let out. The suit was resisted by the defendant. The trial Court dismissed it holding that not one of those grounds was made out.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff appealed. At her instance, the first appellate Court struck out the respondent's defence under Section 13 (6) of the Act. However, the first appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal because she had not established any one of the grounds under Section 12 of the Act. The plaintiff then preferred this second appeal.

( 3 ) WHEN this second appeal was placed for hearing before a learned single Judge, learned counsel for the defendant urged that the lower appellate Court was in error in striking out the defence. This contention was rejected by the learned single Judge. Then the question which arose for his consideration was whether the burden of proving one of the grounds under Section 12 of the Act still remained on the plaintiff notwithstanding the defence having been struck out. A decision of another learned Judge, in Mst. Hajara Begum v. Guljar Khan, S. A. No. 940 of 1965. D/- 3-3-1969 (M. P.), was cited before the learned single Judge, where the learned Judge in the cited case, had observed as follows:-

"under the ordinary law, a tenancy is a matter of contract between a landlord and his tenant and is governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, with the result that a landlord is entitled to evict his tenant after determining his tenancy in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh accommodation Control Act, however, puts statutory restrictions on the rights of the landlord in the matter of eviction of tenants by providing that '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' which are then enumerated in clauses (a) to (p) of the Act. But Section 13 at the same time casts certain duties and obligations on the tenant if he wants to get the benefit of these statutory restrictions against eviction. The intention of the Legislature thus appears to be that tenants who do not comply with the provisions of section 13, cannot get any statutory protection against eviction granted by the Act and cannot therefore claim that the plaintiff landlord cannot evict them unless he has complied with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. The statutory immunity, from eviction which has been enacted in Section 12 of the Act for the benefit of the tenant is not available to him and the suit becomes in fact a simple suit governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act whereunder the landlord can evict his tenant after determining his tenancy in accordance with the provisions of that Act. As the only defences of the defendant tenant against his eviction were those which were provided by the Act and which were now not available to him, the suit of the plaintiff landlord must be decreed with costs. "

Since the referring Judge, did not agree with the other learned Judge in the above observations, he has referred the following questions for being decided by a division Bench:-" (1) Whether the effect of striking out the defence under Section 13 (6)of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is to take out the case from the ambit of that Act and to render that suit as one g