( 1 ) ON 12-1-1987 respondent 1 Roop Chand filed an application under Section 151, C. P. C.- registered as M. C. C. 6/87 - seeking an order for a clarification in the judgment dated 24-9-1986 of Dr. T. N. Singh, J. , in Second Appeal No. 7/86 (Roop Chand v. Bhanu Prakash ). On 29-6-1987 the learned single Judge dismissed the application but granted two weeks time to applicant Roop Chand to deliver vacant possession of the suit accommodation to the landlord-decree-holder, non-applicant Bhanu Prakash, under sub-sec. (7) of S. 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Non-applicant Bhanu Prakash, aggrieved by the grant of two weeks time to applicant Roop Chand, has filed a L. P. A. under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for respondent 1 Roop Chand has raised a preliminary objection that the present L. P. A. is not maintainable under S. 100-A, C. P. C. and also because the impugned order was not a 'judgment' within the meaning of that expression in clause 10 of the Letters Patent. On the other hand, the appellant's learned counsel maintained that the appeal was maintainable because the impugned order was passed in an independent proceeding, and that, the direction, which deprived the appellant of a valuable right under the decree, amounted to a 'judgment' for the purpose of Clause 10 of the Letter Patent.

( 3 ) THE question of maintainability of the appeal has to be seen in the light of the following facts. Appellant Bhanu Prakash got a decree for eviction of respondent No. 1 Roop Chand under Ss. 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 about a non-residential accommodation situate at Morar (in the city of Gwalior ). The tenant's appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Gwalior who affirmed the eviction on the ground contained in S. 12 (1) (h) only. The learned District Judge ascertained from the tenant whether he elected to be placed in occupation of the accommodation. On a query from the learned District Judge, the tenant's counsel told the Court that the tenant elected to be placed in occupation of the accommodation after the rebuilding thereof. The map of the suit accommodation (Ex. P-7) and the map of the proposed construction in the place of the suit accommodation (Ex. P-8) were, however, not pressed into service by the learned District Judge while reciting the statement of the tenant's counsel at paragraph 30 of the judgment.

( 4 ) THE learned District Judge gave three months time to the tenant for delivery of possession of the suit accommodation to the landlord. The learned District Judge, however, added the following rider, "lakin wadi - respondent wadgrast dukan ka rikt adhipatya tabhi prapt kar sakega jab wah wadgrast dukan ka punaha nirman ka karya shuru karne ki sthiti main ho".

( 5 ) THE tenant's second appeal was admitted for final hearing on 7-8-1986. The ground involved was stated to be "the construction of Section 12 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961" which was stated to be a substantial question of law, being a question of interpretation of a statute. On 24-9-86, the date for the final hearing of the appeal, landlord Bhanu Prakash executed an undertaking before a notary. This written undertaking was filed in the Court. Overruling the tenant's submission that the undertaking did not satisfy the requirement of Section 12 (7), the learned single Judge accepted the undertaking and disposed of the second appeal in the following terms :"i direct that the first respondent-landlord shall undertake, as proposed, reconstruction of the premises within a month of the same being vacated by the appellant-tenant. The construction shall be completed within one year and tenant shall be put back into possession of the area which he was occupying previously at the rent to be determined either mutually or by the Court under the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. I further direct that the appellant-tenant shall give vacan