P.K. TARE, J.

1. This is a revision by the plaintiff landlord against the order, dated 20.9.1965, passed by the II Civil Judge, Class II Burhanpur, in Civil Suit No. 79-A of 1964, directing the petitioner landlord to place the respondent tenant in possession of an open plot of land purporting to act under section 151 read with section 18 (3) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

2. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the building was required to be reconstructed and that it was in a dilapidated condition. That suit was compromised on 5.1.1965, whereby the parties agreed that the tenant would vacate the premises on 6.2.1965 and the landlord would complete reconstruction of the building within four months of that date. The construction was, however, not completed within four months and the trial Court further granted an extension of time by another four months. As such, the petitioner was expected to complete the reconstruction of the building by 6.10.1965. On the landlord's failure to complete the reconstruction by 6.10.1965, the tenant applied for taking action against the landlord under section 18 (3) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It was the landlord's contention that he was unable to complete the construction within the time granted fur reasons beyond his control. According to him, the neighbouring building had also fallen down and therefore, he was required to submit a fresh plan to the Municipal Council. According to him, the old plan had become useless on account of the neighbouring building falling down.

3. It was the respondent's contention that the landlord was deliberately postponing the reconstruction of the building and therefore she elected to take possession of the open plot of land where the building was previously standing

4. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case whether the landlord has committed a default in the matter or reconstruction of the building. That is a question which the trial Court should decide properly upon the material that may be brought on record. In connection with that, the parties may be allowed to lead the necessary evidence. The learned Judge of the trial Court has casually remarked that the landlord does not appear to be in default. I may observe that the order that he came to be passed was without giving proper opportunity to the parties to adduce whatever material they might furnish on the question of the default of the landlord in completing the reconstruction. Therefore, the trial Judge ought not to have been influenced by the mere contentions of the respective parties in the absence of proper evidence whether oral or documentary. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to set aside the order under revision which has come to be passed without a proper inquiry.

5. As regards the power under section 18 (3) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is concerned, it envisages redelivery of possession to the tenant after the reconstruction of the building is complete or in the alternative if the Court finds that the landlord has committed a default in the matter of completing the reconstruction the Court can order compensation to be paid to the tenant. It may be relevant to reproduce the said sub-section, which is as follows:-

"If after the tenant has delivered possession on or before the date specified in the order, the landlord fails to commence the work of repairs or building or rebuilding withing one month of the specified date or fails to complete the work in a reasonable time or having completed the work fails to place the tenant in occupation of the Accommodation in accordance with sub-section (2), the Court may on an application made to it in this behalf by the tenant within such time as may be prescribed, order the landlord to place the tenant in occupation of the accommodation or part thereof or to pay to the tenant such compensation as the Court thinks fit."

6. Under the said sub-sec