Strict compliance with rent payment requirements under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is necessary for claiming the benefit of eviction provisions.

N.K. Mody, J.

1. Appellant by Mr. Subodh Abhyankar, advocate with Mrs. Neelam Adbyankar, advocate.

Respondent by Mr. Vishal Baheti, advocate.

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26-10-2005 passed by X Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Appeal No. 35-A/05 whereby the judgment dated 27-1-2005 passed by XI Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore in Civil Suit No. 254/03 whereby decree of eviction was passed against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (in short the "Act") was modified by setting aside the decree under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act and maintaining the decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, the present appeal has been filed.

2. The appeal was admitted by this Court for final hearing vide order dated 1-3-2006 on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the sending of the arrears of rent claimed in the notice by Money Orders and refusal of the same by the Plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the Notice disentitles the Plaintiff to claim decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act? (ii) Whether, under facts and circumstances of the case the decree of eviction under Section 12(2)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is legally sustainable?

(iii) Whether eviction decree can be passed against the tenant in default of rent during the pendency of the suit proceedings in view of Section 13 of Accommodation Control Act?

3. Since the decree was not passed under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, therefore, cross-objections were filed by the Respondent upon which following substantial questions of law were framed vide order dated 27-9-2006:

(a) Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in revering the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on the ground covered under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act?

(b) Whether the reasoning of the first Appellate Court of reversal of a ground falling under Section 12(1)(f) ibid is legally and factually sustainable?

(c) Whether the finding recorded by the first Appellate Court on reversal contained in paragraphs 13 and 14 satisfy the principles laid down for examining the bona fide need of the Plaintiff and hence is liable to be sustained?

4. Short facts of the case are that the Respondent filed a suit for eviction on 26-6-2001 alleging that the Appellant is tenant of the Respondent in the Municipal House No. 54/1 situated at Bhanwarkunwa, Sindhi Colony, Indore ' Rs. 600/- per month. It was alleged that the nature of the suit accommodation is nonresidential. It was alleged that the Appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-6-2000, which has not been paid by the Appellant in spite of notice of demand dated 23-1-2001, which was duly served on 10-2-2001. It was alleged that the Respondent requires the suit accommodation bona fidely to carry on the business of Kirana. It was alleged that the Respondent is having no other alternative accommodation to carry on the business in the city of Indore. It was prayed that decree of eviction be passed under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act.

5. The suit was contested by the Appellant by filing written statement. However, the rate of rent and the arrears were not challenged. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence suit filed by the Respondent was decreed under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act, against which an appeal was filed by the Appellant which was allowed in part and the decree passed under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act was set aside, against which present appeal has been filed, wherein cross-objections have been filed by the Respondent as decree has not been passed under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that since the entire rent was deposited by the Appellant, t