RADHA KISHAN Vs. BHAGWAN DAS CHOUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE crucial provision, of which interpretation is in issue, in this case, of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, the Act, deserves to be quoted, at the outset, in exienso :

(2.) HOWEVER , it is necessary also to keep in view relevant primary pro -vision of the Act directly relatable to the right contemplated under Section 18 (3) afore -quoted. Those provisions are to be read in clause (h) of sub -section (1) and sub -section (7) of Section 12, but I would extract sub -section (7) at appropriate stage. What follows below is Section 12 (1) with relevant clause (h) - 12. Restriction on eviction of tenants -(1) Not with standing anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for has evic -tion from any accommodation except on one or more of the follow -ing grounds only, namely :

(3.) WHAT is not disputed is that in January, 1979, the judgment -debtor tenant, herein the appellant, delivered possession of the suit premises in compliance with the, direction afore -quoted. After four years had passed, the decree -holder/landlord, herein the respondent, having taken no steps to commence reconstruction of the suit house, the instant appellant made an application in the Executing Court under provisions of Section 18 of the Act for restoration of his possession and therein, a further prayer was also made for grant of compensation to the applicant/judgment debtor at the rate of Rs. 110/ - per month to enable him to discharge the liability of rent which he was paying for the premises to which he had shifted after vacating the suit house. The instant respondent filed a reply to the application submitting that for want of permission from the Municipal Corporation, the construction work could not be undertaken. The Executing Court having refused restora -tion and granting instead, compensation to the applicant/appellant, he preferred an appeal, but without success. The Court of appeal below accepted respondent's contention that it was not possible for him to com -mence the construction work in the absence of permission from the Munici -pal Corporation. 1981(I) MPWN 151., wherein, however, the only question decided was whether the lower appellate Court had rightly passed the order for restoration of possession under Section 18(3), vacating the order of compensation passed by the trial Court without ordering an enquiry as to whether the suit premises was fit for human habitation and possession thereof could be restored to the tenant for his occupation. 6. In my view, the provisions afore -quoted bear a careful examination and in that context, the provisions of sub -section (3) of Section 37 of the Act has also to be borne in mind.