JUDGMENT Defendant has come up in Second Appeal u/s 100 of the CPC questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and decree rendered by first appellate Court dated 30.8.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 231 A/2004 which in turn arise out of judgment and decree dated 15.10.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 25-A/2003 by III Civil Judge Class II, Ujjain. I am inclined to admit this appeal on the following substantial question of law :- "Whether Courts below were justified in passing decree u/s 12 (1) (m) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act without taking recourse to the provisions of section 12 (10) ibid?" Heard Shri M.K. Jain, learned counsel for appellant and Shri Manish Manana, learned counsel for respondents. With the consent of parties and looking to the issue involved in the appeal, the appeal is heard finally today itself in motion. The plaintiff obtained a decree u/s 12 (1) (a) and (m) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act from the trial Court. However, the first appellate Court confirmed the decree u/s 12 (1) (m) and set aside in so' far as it relates to ground u/s 12 (1) (a) ibid at the instance of defendant in his appeal. In other words the decree in so far as it relates to ground u/s 12(1) (m) was concerned, the same was upheld, whereas the decree u/s 12 (1) (a) was concerned, it was set aside. So the only decree for eviction that was passed in favour of the plaintiff was on the ground covered u/s 12 (1) (m) ibid. It is this decree which is assailed by the defendant in this second appeal. So far as the decree u/s 12 (1) (m) ibid is concerned, it does not call for any interference. Firstly, it is concurrent in nature. Secondly it being a pure finding of fact, it cannot be interfered with in the second appeal and lastly even otherwise the finding recorded by the two Courts below in so far as ground u/s 12 (1) (m) is concerned, the same is neither illegal nor dehors the facts nor dehors the evidence adduced by the parties. The only mistake that both the Courts below have committed is that while passing decree u/s 12 (1) (m) ibid they did not take note of S. 12 (10) of the Act. The only mistake that both the Courts below have committed is that while passing decree u/s 12 (1) (m) ibid they did not take note of S. 12 (10) of the Act. Section 12 (10) of the reads as under :- "No order for the eviction of a tenant shall be made on the ground specified in clause (m) of sub-section (1), if the tenant within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Court restores the accommodation to its original condition or pays to the landlord such amount by way of compensation as it may direct." Admittedly both the Courts below did not grant any time to the defendant i.e. tenant to restore the accommodation to its original condition nor awarded any compensation to the landlord for the illegal construction made by the tenant in the tenanted premises, which resulted in passing a decree u/s 12 (1) (m) ibid. Be that as it may, once the decree is passed u/s 12 (1) (m) by the Courts below then it is obligatory upon the Court to pass appropriate orders depending upon the nature of the controversy and the construction made giving an opportunity to the tenant to restore the tenanted accommodation in its original condition as contemplated u/s 12 (10) of the Act. Having gone through the record of the case, I am of the opinion that appellant/defendant should be given three months time to be counted from the date of this order to remove/demolish the illegal construction made by him and which has been found to have been made by the Courts to be illegal and restore the tenanted accommodation to its original condition i.e. the condition prior to making the illegal construction to the plaintiff. It is made clear that in case if tenant restore the accommodation to its original condition in favour of the plaintiff within the time stipulated by this Court then in that event tenant will be allowed to remain in the tenanted accommodation. In case if he does not do so, then he shall be evicted from the entire tenanted accommodation. It is with these observations/directions the appeal succeeds in part to the extent indicated above making the decree impugned in conformity with the requirement of section 12 (10) of the Act. In case if he does not do so, then he shall be evicted from the entire tenanted accommodation. It is with these observations/directions the appeal succeeds in part to the extent indicated above making the decree impugned in conformity with the requirement of section 12 (10) of the Act. As far as respondents are concerned they are at liberty to challenge the other part of the decree by filing an appeal as the law may permit them to challenge in so far as it relates to grounds which is declined by the Courts below.