S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the tenant-appellants.

2. Perused the record.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the decree passed by the first appellate Court dated 20-4-1998, dismissing their appeal and confirming the decree of the trial Court for their eviction from the accommodation in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, the tenant-appellants have now approached this Court in second appeal seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned decree.

4. The suit giving rise to this appeal had been filed by Kailash Narain and Padamchand Jain against Paramanand on 18-11-1981. During the pendency of the suit, both the plaintiffs as well as the defendant expired and their heirs and legal representatives were brought on the record.

5. The suit had been filed seeking a decree for eviction on the grounds envisaged under Section 12(l)(a), (c) and (o) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

6. The defendant, Paramanand had filed his written statement on 10-9-1982, denying the plaint allegations including the rate of rent asserting that the requisite conditions contemplated under Se