JUDGMENT The defendant/appellant has come up in appeal feeling aggrieved by the decree of the Courts below directing his ejectment from the suit premises. No detailed statement of the facts is necessary inasmuch as having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the matter deserves to be remanded for decision afresh by the lower appellate Court and hence the facts necessary in that regard need only be stated. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant/appellant on the grounds available under clauses (a) and (h) of section 12 (1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act''). The suit was decreed by the trial Court on the availability of ground under clauses (h). The defendant appealed. At the stage of motion hearing itself, the lower appellate Court formed an opinion that ground under clause (a) was also available to the plaintiff and hence even if the decree was to be set aside holding non-availability of ground under clause (h), the decree for ejectment had to be sustained even then, on the availability of ground under clause (a). On that reasoning, the appeal has been dismissed at the admission stage itself. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that availability of ground under clauses (a) was not even prima facie made out inasmuch as all the arrears of rent were deposited in accordance with section 13 of the Act and even if cause of action was available to the plaintiff on the date of the suit, the defendant/appellant should have been allowed protection against eviction u/s. 12 (3). This aspect of the case has been completely overlooked by the lower appellate Court. In any case, the first appeal raised questions worth being heard and the dismissal at admission stage was in undue haste. The learned counsel for the appellant is also right in submitting that after hearing the appellant alone, as the respondent had not made appearance before the lower appellate Court, that Court formed its own opinion on the availability of ground under clause (a) and the appellant was prejudiced inasmuch as he had no opportunity of addressing the Court on that aspect of the case. Both the contentions raised by the learned counsel have enough force and deserve to be upheld. The appeal is allowed. Both the contentions raised by the learned counsel have enough force and deserve to be upheld. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside. The appeal is remitted back to the lower appellate Court for hearing and disposal afresh. No order as to the costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee as per schedule, if certified. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the lower appellate Court on 15.12.1992.