This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the defendant/tenant against the judgment and decree dated 13.3.1991 passed by the District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Appeal No. 34-A/90, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1986, passed by Vth Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 260-A/84.

The respondents filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant from the suit-shop, situate at Shahjehanabad. Bhopal, under Section 12 (1)(f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 (henceforth 'the Act'), stating that they had no alternative accommodation of their own and the suit-shop is bonafide required for opening a tea-shop by the respondent No.2 Santosh Kumar Jain. There were other grounds also for eviction under Section 12 (1) (b) and 12(1)(c) of the Act. The respondents/plaintiffs had stated that they wanted to construct a new shop where the present shop is situate, for the business of the respondent No.1. They wanted to use the lower portion for the purpose of tea-shop and the upper portion as residence. It was further alleged that it was not possible to get the new construction done without getting the suit-shop vacated. However, there was express plea to the effect that the respondents shall live in the first floor of the shop and they will use the ground floor for the purpose of hotel; and for this purpose they required the suit-shop. It was also pleaded that the respondent wanted to get the shops of the adjoining tenants also vacated.

The appellant/defendant, in his written statement, opposed the plea of the respondents/plaintiffs on each and every ground.

The learned Trial Judge, inter alia, framed the issue on the question of Section 12 (1)(h) of the Act and decreed the suit. So far as the other grounds mentioned by the respondents in their plaint, under Sections 12 (1)(f) and 12 (1)(c) were concerned, the learned Trial Judge rejected the plea of the respondents on these grounds.

In appeal, the lower Appellate Court confirmed the finding and conclusion of the learned Trial Court and maintained the order of passing a decree under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act, passed by the Trial Court, in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.

This Court, by order dated 22.4.1991 admitted this appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration :-

"(1) Whether the requirement of S. 12(7) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act are required to be complied with by the plaintiff before seeking eviction u/s. 12 (1)(h)?

(2) Whether without recording a finding as to the application of S. 12 (7), a decree for eviction could be passed u/s. 12 (1)(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act?

(3) Whether it was incumbent upon the trial Court to have mentioned the time during which the tenant could have taken possession of the premises and the landlord should have completed the reconstruction of the building?"

Subsequently, on 11.4.2000 the following additional substantial question of law was framed :-

"Whether the plea raised by the respondents for eviction of the appellant is covered by Section 12 (1)(f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. 1961 or it is a plea under Section 12(1)(h) of the said Act as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta v. indra Daman Amratlal Seth. AIR 1964 SC 1676?"

In this appeal, there is also a cross-objection on record, filed by the respondents on 3.2.1992 regarding the rejection of their claim on other grounds under Section 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of the Act by the Lower Appellate Court. This cross-objection was reported to be barred by six days. The respondents had, therefore, also filed I.A. No. 1796/92 under Section 5 of Limitation Act on 26.2.1992 for condoning the delay in filing the cross-objection, to which the appellant had also filed his reply on 4.8.1992. Therefore. before framing the aforesaid additional substantial question of law on 11.4.2000, having heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document