( 1. ) THE order in this case shall also govern Miscellaneous (Second)Appeal No. 162 of 1973, which was heard along with this case.

( 2. ) IN both these cases, parties are the same. Two separate suits for ejectment were filed by the plaintiffs-appellants against the respondent for ejectment in respect of two separate tenements on the ground that the premises were required by the landlord for the purpose of re-construction. Both the suits were decreed, but as the respondent exercised his election under sub section (1)of section 18 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to be placed in possession of the accommodation after re-construction, the Court directed the respondent to deliver possession of the premises within a month of the decree dated 2-3-71 to the appellants and the appellants were directed to place the respondent in possession of the premises within two months after re-construction.

( 3. ) THE case of the respondent in each of these cases is that he had fulfilled the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act by offering to deliver possession of the premises in question to the appellants within a month of the decr