JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE order in this case shall also govern Miscellaneous (Second)Appeal No. 162 of 1973, which was heard along with this case. ( 2. ) IN both these cases, parties are the same. Two separate suits for ejectment were filed by the plaintiffs-appellants against the respondent for ejectment in respect of two separate tenements on the ground that the premises were required by the landlord for the purpose of re-construction. Both the suits were decreed, but as the respondent exercised his election under sub section (1)of section 18 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to be placed in possession of the accommodation after re-construction, the Court directed the respondent to deliver possession of the premises within a month of the decree dated 2-3-71 to the appellants and the appellants were directed to place the respondent in possession of the premises within two months after re-construction. ( 3. ) THE case of the respondent in each of these cases is that he had fulfilled the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act by offering to deliver possession of the premises in question to the appellants within a month of the decree, but the appellants avoided taking possession. The appellants however, failed to deliver possession to the respondent after re-construction of the premises and therefore, the respondent filed applications for being placed in possession of the premises under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Act. ( 4. ) THE applications in both the suits were opposed by the appellants mainly on the ground that the respondent had failed to fulfil the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act, inasmuch as he did not deliver possession of the premises to the appellants within the time fixed by the Court and, was therefore, not entitled to be placed in possession of the premises after reconstruction. ( 5. ) THE applications were allowed by the trial Court and the appeals preferred by the plaintiff were dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The plaintiff-appellants have, therefore, preferred this second appeal. ( 6. ) BOTH the Courts below have found that the defendant-respondent had offered to deliver possession of the premises to the plaintiffs within a month of the decree as directed by the Court and that the plaintiffs avoided taking possession of the prerr;ises. The plaintiff-appellants have, therefore, preferred this second appeal. ( 6. ) BOTH the Courts below have found that the defendant-respondent had offered to deliver possession of the premises to the plaintiffs within a month of the decree as directed by the Court and that the plaintiffs avoided taking possession of the prerr;ises. This is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and I do not find any good reason for interference with it in second appeal. ( 7. ) THE learned counsel for the appellants, however, raised certain questions of law in this connection. He urged that the plaintiffs actually obtained possession of the premises through Court in execution proceeding on 15-4-72 and since it is obvious that plaintiffs were not put in possession, within a month as directed by the Court, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of subsection (3) of section 18 of the Act. I do not find any merit in this contention. ( 8. ) ALL that a tenant can be expected to do to fulfil the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act is that he should be ready and willing to place the landlord in possession of the premises and to make offer thereof. He cannot be expected to put the landlord forcibly in possession of the premises. Possession cannot be forced upon on an unwilling landlord. ( 9. ) IT would certainly have been more prudent on the part of the defendant-respondent to approach the Court when his offer of possession was not accepted and forthwith intimate the Court that the premises had been vacated and the defendant was ready and willing to put the landlord in possession. But in the absence of any statutory provisions to this effect, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own mischief. ( 10. ) IT appears that the plaintiffs deliberately did not take possession of the premises within the time stipulated by the Court with a view to disentitle the defendant to the benefit of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Act. In these circumstances, the defendant must be held to have duly complied with the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act. In these circumstances, the defendant must be held to have duly complied with the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act. It would be here pertinent to mention that in the reply filed by the plaintiffs, it was not asserted that the plaintiffs took any steps to take possession of the premises within the stipulated period. They merely denied that the defendant offered to deliver possession to them within the stipulated time. This stand of the plaintiff has been found to be false for good reasons. ( 11. ) I, therefore, agree with the Courts below that in the circumstances of the case, the respondent should be deemed to have fulfilled the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act and is as such entitled to claim the benefit of sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Act. ( 12. ) IT was not disputed before me that the premises in suit have been let out by the plaintiffs to a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. The tenant is not a party to these proceedings and there is nothing on record to show when he was inducted as a tenant. There is also nothing to show that the defendant-respondent apprised the tenant of his right at any stage and, therefore, the possibility of the tenant having occupied the premises bona fide cannot be excluded. In these circumstances, I think it would not be just and proper to make an order directing the plaintiffs to put the defendant-respondent in possession. Under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Act, the Court has a discretion to award compensation in the alternative. I think it would be proper to award suitable compensation to the respondent in the circumstances of the case. Having due regard to the accommodation, its rent before and after reconstruction and other circumstances of the case, I think, a compensation of Rs. 500 in each of these cases to the respondent would be proper. ( 13. ) THE orders of the Courts below must therefore, be modified in both these appeals. ( 14. ) THE appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and the order of the Courts below is modified. 500 in each of these cases to the respondent would be proper. ( 13. ) THE orders of the Courts below must therefore, be modified in both these appeals. ( 14. ) THE appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and the order of the Courts below is modified. The direction of the Courts below to the plaintiffs to put the respondent in possession of the accommodation is hereby set aside and instead the plaintiffs are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500 as compensation to the defendant respondent. I make no order as to costs of the appeal in the circumstances of the case. Appeal partly allowed.