JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J. This appeal has been preferred by the landlord having failed to evict the tenant from the godown let out on the ground under Sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c), 12(1)(h), 12(1)(k) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The suit has been dismissed as per judgment and decree dated 1st March, 1996 passed by IInd ADJ to the Court of District Judge. Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 43-A/80, renumbered as 46-A/94. The Plaintiffs filed a suit way back in the year 1980 averring that godown was let to the Defendant-Respondent on 1-4-1976. Rent payable was Rs. 2,500/- per annum. Defendant was dealing in food grains and seeds in the beginning of tenancy but subsequently he stopped that business and started stocking Tendu leaves used for making Bidis without permission of the landlord. As the leaves were highly inflammable material, it should have been stored in veranda which was closed from the road side and should not have been stored in Southern veranda which was closed from the road side by only a Jafri of iron plates leaving innumerable holes. Defendant deliberately or negligently stocked Tendu leaves in the year 1979-80. SDO, Hoshangabad in case No. 101/80 vide order dated 16-4-1980. found that stocking of Tendu leaves was dangerous. On 11-4-1980 the Tendu leaves stocked in Southern veranda caught fire which immediately spread to the whole godown. In spite of all efforts of Municipal Government to extinguish the fire, it continued for a long period. The fire not only destroyed the Tendu leaves but damaged to the godown building itself to a great extent. The damage to the building was to extent of Rs. 45,000/-. Defendant had himself set it on fire with ulterior purpose. Thus, Plaintiff claimed the damages to the tune of Rs. 45,000/-. Defendant was not entitled to stock the leaves which was easily inflammable material, he used the premises for inconsistent purpose. Defendant was also in default of payment of rent, as such ejectment was prayed; reconstruction of godown had become necessary, as such decree has also been prayed u/s 12(1)(h) of the Act, due to nuisance and inconsistent user the Plaintiff claimed for decree u/s 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(k) of the Act. In the year 1984 during pendency of suit godown was again set on fire and has been destroyed completely. In the year 1984 during pendency of suit godown was again set on fire and has been destroyed completely. Defendant was likely to repair it again with ulterior object though Plaintiff required it for reconstruction. In the written statement Defendant denied the averments contending that owner was Chandrakala Bai not her husband Laxmi Narayan. Laxmi Narayan had no right to seek the ejectment. The godown was taken on rent for storing Tendu leaves in the year 1972 at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per annum not at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per annum. At no point to time food grains or oil was stocked, right from beginning Defendant was doing the business of Tendu leave and for that purpose godown was taken on rent. Order was passed by the SDO in ex parte, at the instance of Plaintiff in collusion with Plaintiff's son Hargovind, another suit for ejectment was also filed by wife of Hargovind relating to an adjacent godown. As against the Plaintiff report was lodged by the Defendant of putting fire to the godown. Police had registered a case against Plaintiff at crime No. 253/80 under 436 of Indian Penal Code. The statement of the witnesses were also recorded u/s 174, Code of Criminal Procedure. Plaintiff Laxmi Narayan and his son Hargovind had obtained anticipatory bail. The damage to Tendu leave worth several lacs was caused to the Defendant; after iron Jafri in the veranda there is wall made of brick, thus, the Defendant was not negligent in stocking Tendu leaves. There was no negligence on his part. He has not done any act which may have been inconsistent with the purpose of tenancy for which he was inducted nor has done any act which is likely to affect adversely the interest of the landlord. It was not possible to put the fire from outside. Plaintiffs were not entitled to obtain decree on any of the ground as claimed in the plaint or for decree of Rs. 45,000/-. By way of amendment it was incorporated that godown was set to fire by miscreants in the year 1984 owing to the murder of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India. As Defendant is Punjabi had godown was also set ablaze. The parties adduced the evidence. 45,000/-. By way of amendment it was incorporated that godown was set to fire by miscreants in the year 1984 owing to the murder of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India. As Defendant is Punjabi had godown was also set ablaze. The parties adduced the evidence. Trial Court has found that there was no act done by the Defendant so as to make him liable for eviction u/s 12(1)(c) or 12(1)(k) of the Act. The rent was deposited, as such Plaintiff was not entitled to decree u/s 12(1)(a) of the Act. The ground u/s 12(1)(h) of the Act was not established. Damage of Rs. 45,000/- has not been proved. Defendant has repaired the godown by spending of approximately Rs. 12,200/-. Consequently the suit has been dismissed. Shri K.N. Agrawal, learned Counsel with Ms. Prabal Gupta for Plaintiff-Appellants, has submitted that defaults were committed by the Defendant in making the payment of rent not only before the trial Court but during the pendency of this appeal. The ground u/s 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(k) was also clearly made out. thus, decree for eviction ought to have been passed on the aforesaid grounds. Lastly he has submitted that as mentioned in the application filed seeking condonation of delay in depositing the rent the business has been shifted from Itarsi to Mandla, that should be a pervasive ground to evict the Defendant from the premises. Shri N.P. Dubey, learned Counsel appearing with Shri M. Tripathi, Advocate for Respondent, has submitted that ground u/s 12(1)(a) of the Act was not available as both the limbs of Section 13 were complied with, though dispute was raised, provisional rent was also fixed by the trial Court, there were no defaults committed before trial Court, however, during the pendency of this appeal certain defaults were made and application seeking condonation of delay was filed, that was allowed by this Court as per interim order dated 5-4-2006. hence, there was no question of passing decree u/s 12(1)(a) of the Act. The Plaintiff Laxmi Narayan and his son Hargovind had set fire to the godown as per Defendant in the year 1980. hence, there was no question of passing decree u/s 12(1)(a) of the Act. The Plaintiff Laxmi Narayan and his son Hargovind had set fire to the godown as per Defendant in the year 1980. that could not be said to be an act done by the Defendant falling within the purview of Section 12(1)(c) of inconsistent user or an act which would cause substantial injury to the Plaintiff, an act has to be such so as to pass a decree u/s 12(1)(c). The ground u/s 12(1)(k) of the Act was also not made out. The Defendant has mentioned in the application filed seeking condonation of delay in making the deposit of rent that there was transfer of business to Mandla but there was no cessation of the business at Itarsi; no cognizance can be taken from application for eviction on the aforesaid ground as it has not been raised as a ground in plaint to evict the tenant. First question for consideration whether Plaintiff is entitled for decree u/s 12(1)(a), statement of deposit of rent has been filed and whatever defaults could be pointed by Shri K.N. Agrawal were committed during pendency of this first appeal and those defaults have been condoned by this Court as per order dated 5-4-2006, thus, once the defaults have been condoned by this Court, no decree u/s 12(1)(a) of the Act can be passed. Coming to the availability of ground u/s 12(1)(c) and Coming to the first aspect of the aforesaid grounds for which purpose the tenancy was created, Plaintiff Laxmi Narayan, husband of Chandrakala Bai/Plaintiff No. 2 and power of attorney holder on her behalf has clearly stated that he was not aware for what purpose godown was given on rent and what was reduced in writing. The rent note has not been exhibited, however, it was read over by Shri K.N. Agrawal, learned Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellants, that rent note nowhere indicates the purpose of letting, was to do the business of food grains and oil. Coupled with the aforesaid statement of Plaintiff in para 6 of his deposition. The rent note has not been exhibited, however, it was read over by Shri K.N. Agrawal, learned Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellants, that rent note nowhere indicates the purpose of letting, was to do the business of food grains and oil. Coupled with the aforesaid statement of Plaintiff in para 6 of his deposition. I have no hesitation in affirming the finding that right from beginning the godown was given for the purpose of doing the business of Tendu leaves, there was no inconsistent user made by the Defendant while using the godown for Coming to the question whether ground u/s 12(1)(c) or 12(1)(k) can be said to be available for ejectment of Defendant, as the godown had caught fire twice, once in the year 1980 and for second time in the year 1984, when godown caught fire in the year 1980 a report was lodged by the Defendant against the Plaintiff Laxmi Narayan and his son Hargovind to the effect that they set fire to the godown causing huge damage to the Tendu leaves worth several lacs, the Defendant has stated that wife of Hargovind had sought ejectment from another godown with respect to which case was pending, thus, in order to harass the Defendant they had put the fire, it appears that anticipatory bail was obtained by Laxmi Narayan and Hargovind, however, they were not charge-sheeted, as apparent from statement of R.P. Kushmakar (D.W. 1), Sub-Inspector of P.S. Itarsi, he has produced the report and stated that case was registered against Laxmi Narayan and Hargovind and they obtained bail from the High Court, however, charge-sheet was not filed on the basis of report. Plaintiff Laxmi Narayan was unable to state whether his son was tried for commission of offence u/s 436 of Indian Penal Code, he has tried to set up his ignorance as to involvement in case. Hargovind Agrawal (P.W. 3) has stated that he and his father had obtained anticipatory bail in the criminal case relating to setting fire to the godown. Case u/s 133 was pending and case u/s 145 was not proceeded with by SDM owing to pendency of civil suit. S.K. Jain (P.W. 4) has stated that damage was caused due to fire in the godown in the year 1980. He had informed Laxmi Narayan and Hargovind as to the incident. Case u/s 133 was pending and case u/s 145 was not proceeded with by SDM owing to pendency of civil suit. S.K. Jain (P.W. 4) has stated that damage was caused due to fire in the godown in the year 1980. He had informed Laxmi Narayan and Hargovind as to the incident. Plaintiff and statement of his witnesses falls short to prove that any act of negligence of Defendant was the cause of fire in the year 1980 and it has also not been disputed that in the year 1984 the godown was set to fire by miscreants owing to situation of law and order created due to murder of the then Prime Minister. Section 12(1)(c) of the Act requires that the tenant or any person residing with him as created a nuisance or has done any act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation, or which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord therein. From the facts of the case it is crystal clear that tenant has not done any act inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation nor any act which was likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord therein. The ground u/s 12(1)(k) provides that tenant has caused or has permitted to be caused substantial damage to the accommodation; it cannot be said that Defendant "has caused" or has "permitted to be caused" substantia! damage to the accommodation. There are certain protection available to the tenant under the Act, he can be evicted only if his act squarely falls within the ground enumerated u/s 12 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said to be an act of Defendant by which he has made himself liable to be evicted under the aforesaid provision. Shri K.N. Agrawal has relied upon a decision of Komal Chand v. Vijay Kumar Jain, 1978 MPWN Note No. 100 In that case Defendant and his brother have committed mischief by demolishing terrace and part of the eastern side front wall and thereby exposing the structure to rains and there was likelihood of further damages; it was held to be an act which was likely to adversely and substantially affect the structure. The facts of the aforesaid case are totally different, there was an act of Defendant thus, the decision is of no avail. Coming to the submission raised by Shri K.N. Agrawal that Plaintiff has shifted the business from Itarsi to Mandla as mentioned in the application dated 6-9-1999, it cannot be culled out that there is cessation of business in the premises, no application has been filed by the landlord to seek eviction on the ground of keeping the premises closed as contemplated u/s 12(1)(d) of the Act in case of availability of fresh ground the Plaintiffs are at liberty to raise the question in independent proceedings. Shri K.N. Agrawal, Advocate has lastly stated that repairs ought to have been allowed, Shri N.P. Dubey, has stated that no repairs are required as repairs have already been made as found by the Court below by the Defendant, if Plaintiff desires to make repairs, he is free to do so. In view of statement Plaintiffs are free to make any further repairs, they can do so without Defendant vacating the premises. I consider it proper to place on record that trial Court was not correct while observing that for claiming damages the Plaintiffs ought to have filed separate suit, there was no misjoinder of cause of action as damage has also not been found to be proved to that extent claimed by Plaintiff, the decree has been rightly declined and it was not proved to be an act of Defendant due to which damage was caused, Plaintiff cannot be said to be entitled for decree. No other point was raised. Resultantly, appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed in terms of the aforesaid order. No costs. Appeal dismissed Final Result : Dismissed