( 1 ) THIS appeal comes before us on a reference made by one of us.

( 2 ) THE appellant Chandanbai filed a suit for eviction against the respondent Surjan in 1964 on two grounds under Section 12 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh accommodation Control Act, 1961. The first ground was under Clause (a) of the said provision that the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent within two months of the ser vice of notice of demand. The second ground was under Clause (e) that the house was required bona fide by the plaintiff for residential purposes. The defendant in his written statement denied the existence of these grounds. During the pendency of the suit, the parties, on December 15, 1965, entered into a com promise which was filed in Court and a decree was passed on its basis on the following terms:--

(1) That the plaintiff's claim for ejectment and possession be and is hereby decreed. (2) That the defendant shall be allowed time to vacate the house till 3112-1968 and till that time the decree shall not be executed. (3) That the defendant has paid the entire rent till 31-12-1965 to the plaintiff. The amount deposited by the defendant towards the rent in court shall be withdrawn by the plaintiff. (4) That the defendant shall pay future damages for his occupation from 1-1-1966 till 31-12-1968 at the rate of Rs. 35/- p. m. (5) That the Municipal and other taxes from 1-1-1966 onwards shall be paid by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff fails to pay the same and the defendant required to pay it. the defendant shall be entitled to deduct the same from the future damages. (6) That the defendant shall be entitled to remove the materials fixed by him viz. tinshed on electric fans and electric fittings. (7) That in case the defendant fails to vacate the house on or before 3112-1968, he shall be liable to pay damages from 1-1-1969 @ Rs. 70/ -. It will be seen that the defendant, under one of the aforesaid terms of the decree, was required to vacate the house by December 31, 1968. The defendant, however, did not comply with that term of the decree and did not vacate the house. The plaintiff-decree-holder then started execution proceedings for obtaining possession. In these proceedings an objection was taken by the defendantjudgment-debtor that the decree not being based on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 12 (11 and being based solely on a compromise was a nullity and not executable. The objection was overruled by the executing Court. In appeal filed by the judgment-debtor the District Judge, Raipur, allowed the objection and held that the decree was a nullity and was not executable. It is against this order that the plaintiff-decree-holder filed the present second appeal.

( 3 ) THE main question in this appeal is whether having regard to Section 12 of the madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the Court has no power to pass a decree on the basis of a compromise.

( 4 ) SECTION 12 of the Act in so far as it is relevant reads as follows:

"section 12-- (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 arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner; ** ** ** "

(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 thetenant 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 arrears of rent has been served on him by th