( 1 ) SENSING a conflict between Jagdish Chandra v. Sara Bai, 1984 MPRCJ (Note) 105, dated 13-3-1984 of Muley, J. and 'phool Chandra Garg v. Ram Narain' in C. M. A. No. 85 of 1974, (G) decided by. Rampal Singh, J. , on 28-6-1985, on the interpretation of sub-s. (6) of S. 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Act 41 of 1961) - hereinafter 'the Act'-, the learned single Judge, Dr. T. N. Singh, J. , stated the following question for decision by a larger Bench. "whether it is obligatory on the Court passing the decree for eviction to make an order for determination of "standard rent" in accordance with the provisions of S. 7/10 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act before passing an order of compensation payable to the landlord and before landlord's obtaining possession of the concerned premises, or the order for compensation may be passed on the basis of agreed or contractual rent, according to the terms of the tenancy between the parties?" ( 2 ) FOR a focal adjustment and then to find the focal point of the reference and the required answer-thereto, we have to bear in mind that the order of reference contains no admitted/proved facts and circumstances of the case. The order which refers to a conflict between Jagdish Chandra's case, 1984 MPRCJ (Note) 105 and Phool Chandra's case (C. M. A. No. 85 of 1974, decided on 28-6-85), does not mention the ratio decidendi of those judgments. Hence the order of reference and the question stated therein call for an answer not merely to the stated question, but to the stated question seen in the context of any discoverable conflict between the two rulings on the interpretation of the provisions of sub-s. (6) of S. 12 of the Act, and expect us to resolve the predicated conflict in the rulings.

( 3 ) WE shall be construing the provisions of sub-s. (6) of S. 12 in the context of other parts of the Act; for this, we have the following authority of Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. (1987)1 SCC 424 at p. 450, Chinnappa Reddy, J. said :"interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted".

( 4 ) THE other authority is State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1241 at p. 1265, Sinha C. J. , said :"the Court must ascertain the intention. of the Legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed but to the entire statute; it must compare the clause with the other parts of the law, and the setting in which the clause to be interpreted occurs. "

( 5 ) CHAPTER III (Control of Eviction of Tenants) of the Act contains Ss. 12 to 23. The material portions of sub-section (1) and of clause (f) thereof and the provisions of sub-section (6) of S. 12, are as follows :"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 : x x x x x x (f) that the accommodation let for nonresidential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned; x x x x x x (6) Where an order for the eviction of a tenant is made on the ground specified in Cl. (f) of sub-sec. (1), the landlord shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof- (a) before the exp