I. This is an appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 21.7.95 passed by IX Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Appeal No. 62-A/94, arising out of judgment and decree dated 6.5.94, passed by IV Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 66-A/93.

2. The appellant is the tenant of respondent. He accepted the suit house No. 109 E-8, Bharatnagar, Shahpura, Bhopal on monthly rent of Rs. 800/- per month. The tenancy commenced from the first day of English calender month and continued upto the last day thereof.

3. The respondent filed civil suit No. 66-A of 1993 against the appellant under section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The allegations in the plaint regarding the grounds under sections 12(1)(a) (ibid) were that the appellant did not deposit the rent of the suit house from January, 1990 despite notice of demand. It was also claimed that the appellant was quarrelling with the neighbours and creating nuisance and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. The ground of eviction under section 12(1)(c) of the Act was that he had no alternative accommodation of his own in the city of Bhopal. The respondent also claimed a decree for arrears of rent from 1.1.90 to 31.12.90 and thereafter mesne profits @ Rs. 800/- per month.

4. The appellant denied the allegations made in the plaint. He denied that he was liable to be evicted under these grounds of the Act. He denied that he was in arrears of rent or that he created any nuisance as claimed by the respondent. He claimed that the respondent did not require the suit house bona fide for his residence.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent on the ground of section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (c) of the Act. It also granted a decree for mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month till the date of delivery of possession against the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the lower appellate Court and this Court admitted the appeal of respondent on the following substantial question of law by order dated 28th August, 1995:-

"Whether the findings of revisional Court with regard to striking out the defence of the defendant/appellant in a suit for eviction is final and the same cannot be looked into by the lower appellate Court in appeal?"

6. It appears from record that the trial Court had struck out the defence of the appellant on the ground of non-deposit of rent under section 13 (6) of the Act. The appellant filed a Civil Revision No. 50/92 against the order of trial Court of striking out the defence. This Civil Revision No. 50 of 1992, dated 2Sth June, 1992 was disposed of by the learned District Judge, Bhopal by directing the appellant to file an application before the trial Court on the ground since he had deposited the rent after striking out the defence, the penalty of striking out defence may be withdrawn. It appears that the trial Court rejected the application and, therefore, the appellant filed another Civil Revision No. 101/92 before the District Judge, Bhopal, which was decided on 24th July, 1992. The learned District Judge dismissed the Civil Revision No.101/92 on merits after notice to the opposite party.

7. The lower appellate Court has held that it was bound by the order passed by the District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Revision No. 101/92, dated 24.7.92 of res judicata and, therefore, there is no scope for interference with the order of striking out the defence by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court confirmed the other findings of trial Court and dismissed the appeal. In the aforesaid circumstances this Court has framed the aforesaid substantial question of law.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on Ganesh Ram v. Smt. Ramlakhan Devi and another (AIR 1981 Patna 36), Karam Singh v. Jagta and others (AIR 198