( 1 ) THE defendant / tenant has come up in appeal aggrieved by the judgments and decree of the lower appellate court directing his ejectment on the ground available to the plaintiff/landlord under S. 12 (1) (c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short ).

( 2 ) THE lower appellate Court has held that the defendant/appellant has by commencing business activity relating to loudspeakers and battery charging in addition to watch making has done an act inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy and has also by denying the title of the plaintiff/ landlord, done an act which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interests of the landlord. Though the trial court had decreed the suit under S. 12 (1) (a) of the Act also, but the lower appellate court has reversed the finding as to availability of that ground for ejectment by holding that there was a dispute as to rate of rent and also as to the person or persons to whom the rent was payable within the meaning of S. 13 (2) and (3) of the Act which dispute having not been decided by a provisional order, the operation of S. 13 was arre