OMPRAKASH Vs. RAMCHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has come up before us on reference by the learned single Judge on the question whether compensation is payable to the tenant under Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, even when the decree for eviction is made not only on the ground contained in Section 12 (1) (f) but also on other grounds. He thought that conflicting views were expressed in Dindayal v. Vimalchand (1973 MPLJ 465) : (AIR 1973 Madh Pra 299), and nathuram v. Gyanchand (Civil Second Appeal No. 292 of 1975 decided on 2012-1975) (Madh Pra ).

(2.) IN the plaintiff's suit for eviction on several grounds contained in Section 12 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the trial Court passed a decree for eviction under Cls. (a) and (f) of Section 12 (1) of the Act. The defendant appealed. The learned Addl. District Judge dismissed the appeal but made the following direction:-" The executing Court, while executing the decree for eviction, shall enquire into what compensation is payable to the appellant as required under Section 12 (6) of the Act. " by this last mentioned direction the plaintiff is aggrieved.

(3.) IN this Second Appeal the plaintiff's contention is that since the decree for eviction has not been passed only on ground contained in Clause (f) of Section 12 (1), but also on other grounds, he is not liable to pay compensation under section 12 (6) of the Act. When this Second Appeal was placed before the learned Single Judge, the abovesaid decisions were referred to him by the contesting parties.