( 1 ) THE following question has been referred by one of us (U. N. Bhachawat J.)to a larger Bench:-" whether an order passed on an application under Section 18 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act is appealable or revisable?"

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the revision are these:--The plaintiff non-applicant filed a suit in respect of the house in question against the applicant and non-applicant No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) on the ground that the accommodation had become unsafe for human habitation and was required, bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which could not be carried out without the accommodation being vacated. The fourth Civil Judge, class II, Gwalior decreed the suit on 24-2-1967 in the following terms:-

"the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 do place the plaintiff in vacant possession of the suit house by 24-2-1966 to enable them to do the repairs. After the defendants delivered possession as directed above the plaintiff do place the defendants in occupation of the suit house within one month of the completion of the said work. "

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed appeal which was dismissed by the Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior who directed the defendants to hand over possession of the house to the plaintiff on or before 5-10-1966, It appears that by mutual agreement the time for delivery of possession of the house to the plaintiff was extended up to 1510-1966 and before that date the defendants handed over possession of the house to the plaintiff on 12-10-1966.

( 4 ) ON 25-1-1967 the defendants made an application before the Fourth Civil judge, Class II, Gwalior under Section 18 (3) of the M. P. Accommodation control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that though the plaintiff had completed the repairs on 30th November 1966 yet he had not delivered back possession of the accommodation to the defendants within one month of the completion of the repairs as directed in the decree. The defendants, therefore, prayed that the plaintiff landlord may be ordered to place the defendants in occupation of the accommodation.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff resisted the defendants' application on a number of grounds. But the trial court by its order dated 16-3-1970 allowed the defendants' application and directed that the possession of the accommodation be restored to the defendants.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the trial court the plaintiff filed appeal and the learned Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior by his order dated 20-10-1971 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court. The defendants thereupon filed a revision to this Court against the order of the Additional district Judge.

( 7 ) AN objection was raised on behalf of the defendants before the learned single judge that the order of the trial court was not appealable and as such the order passed by the Additional District Judge allowing the appeal is without jurisdiction. The learned single Judge noticed two conflicting decisions of this court on the point. In Puranlal v. Sunderbai. 1975 MP LJ (SN) 126. Sohani, J. took the view that such an order is not appealable. On the other hand, Vyas J. in Ganpat Singh v. Prabhakar Deshpande (Civil Revision No. 437 of 1976 decided on 30-10-1976 (Madh Pra)) held that an application under Section 18 (3) of the Act falls within the purview of Section 47 of the Code of Civil procedure and is consequently appealable.

( 8 ) YET, another decision has come to our notice i. e. Bala Saheb v. Laxman Rao (Civil Revision No. 425 of 1969) decided on 12-11-1974 (Madh Pra) by one of us (Shiv Dayal J. as he then was ). In that case it was held that a decree passed on a ground specified in Clause (g) or Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 is "partly final and partly preliminary; it is final so far as the right of the landlord to be put in possession by the tenant is concerned;