1. This is defendant's appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 15-A12005 by Additional Judge to the Court is 1st Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad by which judgment and decree dated 31.8.2004 in Civil Suit No. 24-A12004 by Civil Judge Class 1, Itarsi was affirmed. The Court below decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent under section 12 (1) (e) and (h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). This appeal was admitted on 28.6.2006 on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether in view of section 18 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the decree under section 12 (1) (e) and (h) can be passed?" 2. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the Court below erred in granting a decree under section 12 (1) (e) and (h) of the Act. Section 18 of the Act specifically provides re-entry of the tenant in the premises after repairs and rebuilding. The trial Court granted a decree under section 12 (1) (h) of the Act which specifically provides re-entry in the premises after the reconstruction while under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act, there is no such provision. Aforesaid both grounds are conflicting to each other and such decree could not have been passed by the Court below. It is further submitted that in case, premises are required for reconstruction then a decree under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act is redundant, as such premises cannot be used for residential purposes because the plaintiff"' respondent sought eviction for reconstruction of the premises. It is submitted that judgment and decree passed by the Court below may be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent may be dismissed.

3. Sarvashree Vijay Nayak and D.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the controversy involved in the case has been settled by the Division Bench in T.R. Sah v. Smt. Kundan Kaur and others [2006 (1) JLJ 20] wherein the Division Bench held that such a decree can be passed. It is submitted by the respondent that this appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and may be dismissed with costs.

4. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, factual position in the case may be stated:

(a) Respondent filed a suit alleging that the suit house belongs to his ownership and situated in the township of Itarsi. The suit house was purchased by the plaintiff by a registered sale-deed dated 10.8.1994. Father of appellant No.2 and husband of appellant No. 1 late Nathuram Gupta entered into tenancy of the said house in February, 1998 at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. Since then appellant were residing as tenant in the accommodation. Nathuram Gupta died before filing of the suit.

(b) That the suit accommodation was required by the plaintiff for the residence of his family and for this purpose he was not having any other suitable accommodation of his own in the township of Itarsi. At the time of filing of the suit, plaintiff was residing alongwith his brothers in the ancestral house where he and his family was facing difficulty and for this purpose, the suit accommodation was required.

The suit house was an old house and the plaintiff wanted to reconstruct after its demolition and for this purpose, he obtained permission from relevant departments and was having necessary fund for the construction. A notice was served on the appellants but the appellants denied title of the plaintiff-respondent. On these grounds, the suit was filed.

(c) Appellants contested the suit by filing written statement alleging that in the first and third floors, sufficient accommodation was available and were lying vacant in which plaintiff and his family can reside. The suit accommodation was not required bonafide by the plaintiff and the entire purpose for vacation of the house was to let it out on a higher rent. The plaintiff was having three other accommodations which fact was concealed by the plainti