T.N. Singh, J.-1. Absence of boggling authorities was not considered a handicap in rendering the decision in Chandrashekhar v Krishnadas 1986 (II) MPWN 190 To-day I am inclined to consider it a blessing-the pains taking enterprise of respondents counsel who has laboured hard with the aid of case-law, in persuading me to have a second look at Chandrashekhar.

2. First few skeletal facts, necessary to dispose of the contentions agitated. The defendant is the appellant against whom the suit was instituted on 20-10-1973 under section 12 (1) (a) of the Madhya pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, the 'Act' or M.P. Act. Two Courts below having passed decrees for his eviction from the suit house, she bas appealed to this Court, indeed pinning hopes on Chandrashekhar (supra). The admitted position is that on 1-3-1974, in his written statement, the appellant ‘disputed’ the 'arrears of the rent' for non-payment of which the suit was instituted On 10-10-1974, the trial Court resolved the 'dispute' and determined the 'arrears' due payable by the tenant/defendant. It has also been established that pursuant to the said determination, within a month of the order, the tenant/d