H.G. Mishra, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 25-7-80, whereby he has decreed the suit of the plaintiff on grounds under section 12 (1) (a) and (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, after reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the trial Court dated 19-4-1979.

2. Facts material for decision of this appeal are as under;--

The plaintiff-respondent No. 1, herein, brought the suit giving rise to this appeal on 15-5-76, for eviction of the defendants from the suit house and for recovery of arrears of rent on the allegations that defendant No. 1 Babulal, is his tenant and that he has unlawfully inducted defendants-appellant No. 2, 3 and 4 as sub-tenants; that the defendant No. 1 is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 6-5-75 i.e. the date when the plaintiff has purchased the suit house from the ex-Landlord Smt. Gyasobai, widow of Gokaliya the stipulated rent being Rs. 14/- per month it is further averred that the plaintiff served a demand-cum-quit notice on the defendant No. 1, Babulal, by registered post on 25-8-75; that inspite of service of the notice on the defendant No. 1, Babulal, he has neither paid or nor tendered the arrears of rent within two months of the receipt of the notice of demand nor has vacated himself the suit premises nor got he vacated the sub-tenants. Thus the suit, as originally brought, was on grounds under section 12 (1) (a) and (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (for short the Act); that by amendment in the plaint, allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 2-12-78, ejectment was also sought on an additional ground falling under Clause (h) of sub-sec. (1) of section 12 of the Act, namely, the suit premises are bona fide required by the plaintiff for reconstruction and plans and estimates for which have been duly got sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, on 14-7-77. It was also averred that sufficient funds are available to the plaintiff for the proposed reconstruction and that reconstruction is not possible without getting the suit premises vacated from the defendant.

3. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by a joint written statement, inter alia, on the grounds that no notice was served on the defendant No. 1, Babulal, the tenant; that the defendants other than Babulal are not the sub-tenants, but are joint tenants in possession of the suit premises; that grounds under section 12 (1) (a), (b) and (h) of the Act are not available to the plaintiff, inasmuch as in the absence of service of any notice of demand no cause of action under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act can be regarded to be available to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff does not bona fide require the suit premises moreover, he does not possess sufficient means for reconstruction of the suit premises. The averment as regards the plans and estimates got prepared by the plaintiff, is also denied.

4. After recording evidence of the parties, the trial Court held that the plaintiff has proved the availability of ground under section 12 (1) (h) of the Act, but dismissed the suit for ejectment on the findings that the plaintiff has failed to prove the service of notice to quit and that grounds under section 12 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act were also negatived.

5. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the lower appellate Court. The learned A.D.J. has held that the service of the notice to quit is no longer a requirement of the law; that notice served by the plaintiff on the defendant No. 1, Babulal, has to be regarded as a notice of demand of arrears of rent for the purpose of section 12 (1) (a) of the Act: that the defendant No. 1 Babulal, having made defaults in depositing the rent in compliance of section 13 (1) of the Act, as such the plaintiff is entitled to a decree on ground under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act. The groun