Mathur, C.J. -- 1. This is a reference made by the learned single Judge holding that the question raised in the First Appeal is of an importance; therefore, it may be decided by the Division Bench, though the question of law has not been framed by the learned single Judge. However, whenever question is referred to the Larger Bench, question of law should be framed and then it should be referred to the Larger Bench. Since the question of law was not framed by the learned Single Judge, we shall frame a proper question. after narration of few necessary facts.

2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. There is a house existing on plot No. 8/1 and 9 measuring 400 sq. ft. The suit premises was rented out by the plaintiffs to the defendant-Bank on monthly rent of Rs. 4537.50 paise. The suit premises was previously owned by Bhagwanji Amarsi Chatwani and thereafter, the suit premises were purchased by the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the plaintiffs required the suit premises in order to start their business.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant-Bank. It is alleged that the suit premises originally belonged to one Swami Bhagwanji Amarsi and it was rented out by him to the Bank in a sum of Rs. 4125/- per month on 1.3.1982. It is alleged that there was a condition stipulated in the rent agreement that it shall be for a period of five years and with an option to the plaintiffs to further extend the period for another five years with 10% increase rent. The increase rent was Rs. 4537.50 paise per month for another period of five years, which was being paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs. It is alleged that another period of five years was to expire on 29.2.1992, but the suit was filed on 4.1.1991; therefore, the suit is pre-mature.

4. About three issues were framed and issue No. 2(b) was that as per agreement, the tenancy was to expire on 29.2.1992; therefore, the plaintiffs could not bring the suit for eviction before expiry of the tenancy period. This issue was answered by the trial Court in favour of the defendant-Bank along with other issues and dismissed the suit along with the decision on other issues with which we are not concerned.

5. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 25.6.1993 of the trial Court, the present appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants before this Court, and when it came before the learned single Judge, the learned single Judge by order dated 25.6.1997, looking to the importance of the issues, referred it to the Larger Bench. Hence, this appeal came before us.

6. On the basis of the facts which have been disclosed above, the following question of law arises, which reads as under :--

"Whether the plaintiffs can bring a suit before expiry of extended period of five years when there is a contract that the tenancy was for a period of five years with further option for another period of five years with increase of 10% rent, or not ?"

There is no gainsaying. Whenever there is a contract for a period of 5 years extended for another period of 5 years, then so far as the tenancy is concerned, it cannot be disputed. But the question is whether during the contractual period of tenancy, a suit can be brought prior to the expiry of the contracted period. The tenancy in the State of Madhya Pradesh is governed by the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1961' in short). Section 12 of the Act of 1961 deals with the eviction of tenants. Section 12 reads as under :--

"S. 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:

xxx xxx xxx"

Therefore, when the contract of tenancy is stipulating a fixed tenure, then in that case, whether Section 12 can override such contract or not. Section 12 starts with non-obst