U.N. Bhachawat, J

This is an appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 31st October 1981 of the Court of the Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Guna, in Civil Appeal No. 70-A of 1979, whereby it has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 2-7-1979 of the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Guna, in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 1976.

The plaintiff-landlord-respondent herein had filed a suit against the appellants herein for their ejectment from the suit accommodation on the grounds under section 12(1) (f) and (o) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The suit has been decreed by both the Courts on these grounds. Thus, the defendants have filed the present appeal, which has been admitted on the following questions:-

(i) Whether no decree on the ground under section 12(1)(o) of the Act, could be granted, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not put a separate valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fees, with regard to the portion which is alleged to have been encroached by the defendants, and, at any rate, no decree could be passed for ejecting the defendants from the encroached portion?

(ii) Whether the decree on the ground under section 12(1)(o) of the Act is vitiated also for the reason that there is non-compliarce of section 12(11) of the Act?

I shall deal with these questions ad seriatim.

The few facts may be stated to have a proper grip of the matter, so as to properly appreciate and decide the question at hand in its true perspective. The defendants are the tenants of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the present suit for ejectment of these defendants on grounds under section 12(l) (f) and (o) of the Act. The tenanted premises is a part of a raised platform (chabutara) over which the defendants have been carrying on their pan shop. According to the plaintiff, the width of the portion, that was included in the tenancy of the defendants, was 5 feet west to east (hereinafter referred to as 'the let accommodation'), whereas in July 1975, without the written permission of the plaintiff, the defendants took possession of a portion admeasuring 5'10" running west to east-a portion which was not included in the accommodation let to them -hereinafter referred to as 'the encroached accommodation.'

The plaintiff after giving the requisite notice calling upon the defendants to vacate the let accommodation as also the encroached accommodation, filed the present suit for the ejectment of the defendants on grounds under section 12(1) (f) and (o) of the Act. The suit was resisted by the defendants. With regard to the encroached accommodation, the case of the defendants was that it was included in their tenancy. As already stated hereinbelow, the two Courts below negatived the contentions of the defendants and decreed the suit.

The plaintiff had valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees as under:-

Valuaiion. Court-fees.

(1) Rs. 1,000, (for recovery of the amount of arrears of rent calculated for the let accommodation and Rs. 154, (the amount of compensation in respect of the encroached accommodation). Rs. 100.

(2) Rs. 300 (for ejectment from the let accommodation as well as the encroached accommodation, being the annual rent, of the let accommodation, calculated at Rs. 25 p. m.) Rs. 30.

The rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties are capsulised as under: -

According to the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants, since the plaintiff has claimed ejectment of the defendants from the encroached accommodation on the allegation that that portion is not included in the tenancy, and the defendants unauthorisedly occupied it, substantially, the allegation is that the defendants are trespassers with regard to that portion, and liable to be ejected. The valuation, therefore, for that portion for the purposes of jurisdiction and eourt-fees should have been under section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, which is distinct fr