A penal provision in a social welfare legislation, such as the provision in section 12(1)(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, which allows for the eviction of a tenant who has acquired suitable accommodation, must be construed strictly.

( 1. ) This is an appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior, dated 13-3-1978, which was passed in Civil Appeal No. 78A of 1977 which was preferred against the Judgment and decree passed by the Fourth Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 120A of 1963 Original Civil Suit on 26-4-1977.

( 2. ) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction from residential accommodation against the defendant-appellant on the ground that the defendant-appellant has purchased a house in the name of his wife situated at Daulatganj, Lashkar. The plaintiff-respondent verbally told the defendant that he has purchased a house and as such he should vacate the disputed premises. Further, it was also stated that the defendant has damaged the cement sheets and has caused loss to the plaintiff. It was further stated by an amendment in the plaint that the defendant has opened a window in the suit house towards the Dharmashala. A notice regarding all these facts was given on 29-3-1963 to the defendant and for termination of tenancy also. As the suit premises were not vacated by the defendant, the present suit is filed.

( 3. ) The defendant denied the plaint allegations and asserted that he has not purchased any house. The house which is purchased by his wife is not a Benami transaction. It was her own house and as Shakuntaladevi the wife is a blind woman, she cannot look after her affairs. Because of this, her husband, that is, the defendant, is collecting rent on her behalf. Further, it was stated that the alleged house which is purchased by the blind wife, is not suitable for his residence. Regarding damaging the residential portion, he denied all the allegations. On the contrary, he stated that the defendant- tenant has spent Rs. 65 in making repairs in the house and it was agreed by the landlord that this amount will be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. Further, it was stated that the notice for eviction sent by the landlord is waived because the landlord has accepted rent for subsequent months and, therefore, the landlord has accepted the defendant as his tenant and waived the notice of termination of tenancy.

( 4. ) The trial Court framed the following issues : -

1. Whether the house purchased by Shakuntaladevi has been sold away ? If so, what is its effect on the suit ? 2. Whether notice given by the plaintiff dated 29-3-1963 is illegal ? 3. (a) Whether the defendant is using the suit house carelessly ? (b) Whether the defendant has damaged the cement sheeted shed fitted in the suit house ? 4. (a) Whether the defendant has spent Rs. 65 on the repairs of the suit house ? (b) Whether the defendant is eligible to get these Rs. 65 adjusted ? 5. Relief and costs ? 6. Whether the plaintiff has waived his notice by accepting the amount of rent from the defendant ? 7. (a) Whether the plaintiff, being a charitable institution, is not registered under the M. P. Public Trust Act? (b) Whether the institution (if it is there) has no right to prosecute the suit because of non-registration? 8. Whether the defendant has damaged the suit house by opening window from the side of the Dharmashala, without the permission of the landlord, during the period of his tenancy? 9. Whether the plaintiff has filed a suit in the Court of Rent Controlling Authority, which was dismissed and which was for enhancement of rent?

( 5. ) An additional objection was subsequently taken that the plaintiff is a Public Charitable Trust and as long as the Trust is not registered under the M. P. Public Trust Act, the suit cannot proceed. Regarding non-registration of the Trust under the M. P. Public Trust Act, the matter was taken up to this Court and subsequently, the Trust was registered.

( 6. ) The trial Court decreed the suit, an appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the appellate Court, after hearing the arguments of both the p