A tenant who has incurred liability for ejectment under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, on account of denial of landlord's title, cannot escape eviction by subsequently withdrawing the denial, in the absence of a specific provision in the Act to that effect.

R.C. Lahoti, J.

1. The tenant/defendant has filed the second appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the two courts below directing his ejectment from the suit premises on the grounds available to the plaintiff/landlords under clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter, 'the Act', for short). The two courts below have found the tenant to be defaulter, also guilty of committing an act injurious to the interests of the landlords by denying the latter's title in the suit property.

2. There has been an earlier round of litigation between the parties. The tenant/appellant had committed default in payment of rent. Suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears was decreed by the two courts below. The tenant filed a second appeal registered as S.A. No. 182/1974, which was disposed of by this Court on 23-4-1980. The tenant was held to be a tenant in the suit premises. However, the suit for ejectment based solely on the ground of tenant's default in clearing the arrears in spite of the service of a demand-cum-quit notice was held to be premature, as having been filed before the expiry of the statutory period of two months. On this ground alone the appeal was allowed and the suit for ejectment was directed to be dismissed.

3. The two courts below have concurrently found the appellant to be a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 4/-. It has also been found that the tenant has been in arrears since 1-10-1977 which arrears he failed to clear in spite of a demand-cum-quit notice which though tendered was refused by the tenant on 23-8-1980. Not only these findings are those of facts, immune from challenge in second appeal; no challenge has been laid to these findings on behalf of the tenant/appellant during the course of hearing.

4. No substantial question of law was framed by this Court while admitting the appeal for final hearing and noticing the landlord/respondents. However at the hearing, the learned counsel for the parties have directed their submissions on the following substantial questions of law :

(1) Whether the tenant/appellant can still be allowed opportunity of clearing arrears and thereby, earn protection from eviction under Section 12(3) of the Act ?

(2) Whether the tenant/appellant can be allowed to withdraw from the denial of landlords' title earlier made by him and if so, whether it could have the effect of wiping out the cause of action under Section 12(l)(c) of the Act?

Question No. (1) :-

5. Not only the tenant/appellant had remained a defaulter ever since 1-10-1977 until 23-8-1980 when demand-cum-quit notice was issued to him, he had continued to be in default even on 17- 11-1980 when the suit was filed. It was open to the tenant to have made a deposit and thereafter continue to make deposits of rent falling in arrears month by month consistently with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. If at all the provisions of Section 13 would have been complied with, the tenant would have earned protection from eviction under Section 12(3) of the Act. Far from complying with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act and making an attempt at explaining the reasons which might have contributed to the earlier default, the tenant with impunity chose to throw a challenge to and thereby dispute the title of the landlords in the suit accommodation. The tenant's pleas have been found to be false by the two courts below. He has been found to be a tenant of the plaintiff/landlords holding the premises at a meagre monthly rent of Rs. 4/-. Till this day it is not the case of the tenant/appellant that he has mended and reconsidered himself with better sense having dawned upon him and that he having cleared all the arrears of rent was interested in seeking indulgence of the Court so as to protect himself from eviction.

6. As the scheme of the Act shows a tenant can- make a call to liberal conscience of the Court under Section 12(3) of the Act only