( 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 decree, but the appellants avoided taking possession. The appellants however, failed to deliver possession to the respondent after re-construction of the premises and therefore, the respondent filed applications for being placed in possession of the premises under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Act.

( 4. ) THE applications in both the suits were opposed by the appellants mainly on the ground that the respondent had failed to fulfil the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act, inasmuch as he did not deliver possession of the premises to the appellants within the time fixed by the Court and, was therefore, not entitled to be placed in possession of the premises after reconstruction.

( 5. ) THE applications were allowed by the trial Court and the appeals preferred by the plaintiff were dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The plaintiff-appellants have, therefore, preferred this second appeal.

( 6. ) BOTH the Courts below have found that the defendant-respondent had offered to deliver possession of the premises to the plaintiffs within a month of the decree as directed by the Court and that the plaintiffs avoided taking possession of the prerr;ises. This is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and I do not find any good reason for interference with it in second appeal.

( 7. ) THE learned counsel for the appellants, however, raised certain questions of law in this connection. He urged that the plaintiffs actually obtained possession of the premises through Court in execution proceeding on 15-4-72 and since it is obvious that plaintiffs were not put in possession, within a month as directed by the Court, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of subsection (3) of section 18 of the Act. I do not find any merit in this contention.

( 8. ) ALL that a tenant can be expected to do to fulfil the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act is that he should be ready and willing to place the landlord in possession of the premises and to make offer thereof. He cannot be expected to put the landlord forcibly in possession of the premises. Possession cannot be forced upon on an unwilling landlord.

( 9. ) IT would certainly have been more prudent on the part of the defendant-respondent to approach the Court when his offer of possession was not accepted and forthwith intimate the Court that the premises had been vacated and the defendant was ready and willing to put the landlord in possession. But in the absence of any statutory provisions to this effect, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own mischief.

( 10. ) IT appears that the plaintiffs deliberately did not take possession of the premises within the time stipulated by the Court with a view to disentitle the defendant to the benefit o