JUDGMENT G.S. Solanki, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment/order dated 12.05.2000, passed by VIIth Addl. District Judge, Bhopal, in civil suit No. 94-A/99, Plaintiff/Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Plaintiff/Appellant had filed civil suit against the Defendant/Respondent for eviction, arrears of rent and damages. 3. It is undisputed that Defendant/Respondent was employee of Plaintiff/Appellant. He was retired on 30.06.94. It is also undisputed that during his employment he was allotted a quarter No. 4/30, Ravi Shankar Nagar, Bhopal at the rate of Rs. 88.50/- per month. 4. Plaintiff/Appellant's case in short is that on 30.06.94 when Defendant/Respondent was superannuated from the services he was allowed to retain the aforesaid quarter for a period of 4 months on the same rental basis. This period was expired on 31.10.94, however, on the representation made by the Defendant/Respondent and on a sympathetic consideration the Defendant/Respondent was allowed to retain the quarter for the further period of 5 months till 31.03.95 on the same rental basis but Defendant/Respondent neither vacated the quarter nor deposited the monthly rent @ Rs. 88.50/- per month from 1.7.94 to 30.04.95. 5. Plaintiff/Appellant issued reminders to Defendant/ Respondent and also orally informed him on number of times to hand over the vacant possession along with the unpaid rent but of no avail. Then Plaintiff/Appellant sent a registered notice on 1.11.98 which was received by the Respondent/Defendant on 8.11.98. Despite service of notice Defendant/Respondent failed to hand over the vacant possession of disputed quarter along with the unpaid rent. 6. According to Plaintiff/Appellant the quarter had been alloted to Defendant/Respondent within the contract of service and since he was no longer in the employment of Plaintiff/Appellant, he was duty bound to vacate the quarter and hand over the vacant possession along with the arrears of rent. Ultimately, Plaintiff/Appellant filed the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages under Section 12(1)(a) and Section 12(1)(j) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 7. Plaintiff/Appellant claimed rent from 1.7.94 to 30.04.95 @ Rs. 88.50/-, total amount Rs. 885/- and thereafter according to rules Defendant/Respondent had to pay rent at the market rate w.e.f. 1.5.95 to 31.12.98 @ Rs. 1,330/- per month, for 44 months, amounting to Rs. 58,520/. More over due to increase in water tax an amount of Rs. 1,360/- from 1.1.99 to 31.8.99 amounting to Rs. 88.50/-, total amount Rs. 885/- and thereafter according to rules Defendant/Respondent had to pay rent at the market rate w.e.f. 1.5.95 to 31.12.98 @ Rs. 1,330/- per month, for 44 months, amounting to Rs. 58,520/. More over due to increase in water tax an amount of Rs. 1,360/- from 1.1.99 to 31.8.99 amounting to Rs. 10,880/- coming to a grand total of Rs. 70,285/-. 8. Defendant/Respondent resisted the demand of Plaintiff/Appellant on the ground that Plaintiff/Appellant had not paid his 1/4th pension amount. He is old, retired person, he had no means to carry out his family. According to him, the demand of Plaintiff/Appellant is unreasonable and illegal. 9. Trial court on appraisal of evidence on record passed the impugned judgment and decree for eviction with the arrears of rent of Rs. 3,186/-. Being aggrieved Plaintiff/Appellant filed this appeal. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that trial court committed error in not allowing the market rent and penal rent of disputed quarter. She further submitted that since Defendant/Respondent is governed by the service rules hence tenancy would be covered by the Transfer of Property Act. Trial court erred in applying Sections 6, 8 and 9 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act therefore, she prays for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and further prays for granting the decree of arrears of rent at the rate of market rate, against the Defendant/Respondent. 11. I perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other materials on record. It is admitted fact that Defendant was section officer of Plaintiff/Appellant's board and he was superannuated on 30.06.94. It is also not disputed that during the course of employment a quarter No. 4/30, Ravi Shankar Nagar, Bhopal was allotted to him on monthly rent of Rs. 88.50/- vide order dated 07.07.87, Ex. P/1. Khan Jameelur Rehman, (P.W.1) deposed that Plaintiff issued a notice of eviction against Defendant/Respondent, Ex. P-3 but Defendant did not vacate the disputed house. Then again Plaintiff/Appellant issued second notice, Ex. P-4 with the direction that Defendant/Respondent had to deposit Rs. 2,292/- of arrears of rent. 12. Khan Jameelur Rehman,(P.W.1), further deposed that vide order dated 31.12.96, Ex. P-5 Defendant/Respondent was allowed to retain the quarter on normal rent till 28.02.95 and thereafter he has to pay the rent on market rate from 01.03.95. Then again Plaintiff/Appellant issued second notice, Ex. P-4 with the direction that Defendant/Respondent had to deposit Rs. 2,292/- of arrears of rent. 12. Khan Jameelur Rehman,(P.W.1), further deposed that vide order dated 31.12.96, Ex. P-5 Defendant/Respondent was allowed to retain the quarter on normal rent till 28.02.95 and thereafter he has to pay the rent on market rate from 01.03.95. He further deposed that on the application of Defendant/Respondent dated 25.12.94 he further allowed to retain the quarter till 30.04.95 on normal rent. When Defendant failed to vacate the disputed quarter, Plaintiff/Appellant further issued a notice dated 20.07.95 Ex. P-7 thereby he was informed to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs. 4,875/-. Despite receiving the notice Defendant/Respondent failed to vacate the disputed quarter. Then again notices dated 18.09.95 Ex. P-8 and 23.01.96, Ex. P-9 were issued to Defendant/Respondent. 13. Khan Jameelur Rehman, (P.W.1) further deposed that Defendant/Respondent filed application dated 14.03.96, Ex. P-10 for further extension of time to vacate the disputed quarter, same was disposed of by Plaintiff/Appellant and order dated 04.04.96 was sent to Defendant/Respondent thereby it was informed to him that he has to vacate the house on 30.04.96 and he has to deposit Rs. 16,675/- as arrears of rent but Defendant failed to comply with the aforesaid order then a legal notice Ex. P-12 was issued to him. Thereafter, suit was filed against the Defendant/Respondent. 14. Khan Jameelur Rehman, (P.W.1) further deposed that he was appointed OIC for this case vide order Ex. P-14 and Plaintiff Board passed the order to determine the rent of residential house vide order Ex. P-13. 15. Defendant/Respondent admitted in his cross examination that Plaintiff/Appellant Board allowed him to retain disputed quarter for 6 months. He further admitted that Plaintiff board sent him many letters. He further admitted that he failed to deposit rent even of general rate and expressed his inability to pay the rent because he did not get pension till one year after his retirement. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that Respondent was well informed regarding the market rent by notices issued to him therefore, trial court committed error in not allowing the rent @ market rate. 17. When I peruse the legal notice Ex. P-12 issued to Respondent and consequently suit filed by Plaintiff/Appellant it reveals that Plaintiff himself brought the suit under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 17. When I peruse the legal notice Ex. P-12 issued to Respondent and consequently suit filed by Plaintiff/Appellant it reveals that Plaintiff himself brought the suit under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Notice and plaint clearly show that Plaintiff sought eviction of Defendant/Respondent under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(j) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. In these circumstances, Plaintiff is bound by all provision of M.P. Accommodation Control Act because one can not allow to take the benefit of one of the provision of the act and to avoid the non beneficial provision of same act. In other words party can not approbate and reprobate at the same time, these prepositions are so well known, that no possible exception can be taken to them. In these circumstances, trial court rightly pointed out in his impugned judgment that since Plaintiff/Appellant did not follow the procedure provided under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act for lawful increase of standard rent therefore Plaintiff/Appellant could not claim rent other than the contractual rent on which the accommodation was allotted to Defendant/Respondent. 18. Plaintiff/Appellant filed official order dated 31.11.91 Ex. P-13 this shows that Plaintiff board determined the market rate on the basis of Rs. 165/- per sq.ft. to be recovered from unauthorized occupant of residential house of the Board. This letter reveals that the order was passed on the basis of letters of District Collector, Bhopal and Superintending Engineer, PWD, Bhopal but such type of market rent can only be recovered under the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1994. 19. Under aforementioned Act an unauthorized occupant of public premises, can be evicted by competent authority appointed under that Act and same competent authority can recover the arrears of rent at the rate of market rate or penal rent but this case is purely under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, therefore Plaintiff/Appellant can not be allowed to flout the specific provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 20. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Respondent is governed by service rules hence he can not disobey the order of his superiors. No doubt Respondent was employee of Plaintiff/Appellant board and he is abide by certain rules of the Board. Considering this aspect of the matter when I perused the facts of this case, I found that Respondent repeatedly applied for extension of time to vacate the disputed quarter. No doubt Respondent was employee of Plaintiff/Appellant board and he is abide by certain rules of the Board. Considering this aspect of the matter when I perused the facts of this case, I found that Respondent repeatedly applied for extension of time to vacate the disputed quarter. It reveal from Ex. P-5,P-6,P-7,P-8,P-9,P-10 and P-11 that Plaintiff/Appellant board primarily extended the time to vacate the quarter on the general rate of rent and it was up to 30.04.96. It further reveal that Respondent was repeatedly informed regarding the rate of rent  Rs. 1,320/- per month and despite the aforesaid information Respondent repeatedly tried to extension of time by number of representations and his last representation Ex. P-10 was disposed of vide order dated 4.4.96 vide Ex. P-11 and Respondent was informed to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs. 16,665/-. 21. In above mentioned circumstances, Plaintiff/Appellant is entitled to recover Rs. 16,665/- arrears of rent from the Respondent because despite warning Respondent failed to vacate the disputed quarter but after that incident a legal notice Ex. P-12 was served to Respondent and Plaintiff/Appellant board to terminate his tenancy and demanded the arrears of rent and further informed to institute the suit under Section 12(1)(a) and of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. By this notice Plaintiff/Appellant expressed his intension that dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant will be governed by M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Therefore, after legal notice( Ex. P-12) Plaintiff/Appellant can not claim the arrears of rent, other than the contractual rent. In these circumstances, finding recorded by the trial court in regard to the arrears of rent can not be said to be illegal. But considering the special facts, that Appellant extended the time to vacate disputed quarter, on the request of Defendant. The Appellant is entitle to recover whole unpaid rent after legal notice at the rate of contractual rent only from Defendant/Respondent. 22. In these circumstances, this appeal is partly allowed and finding recorded by the trial court in regard to arrears of rent is modified to the following extent: (i) The decree of eviction is affirmed. (ii) Defendant/Respondent is directed to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 16,665/- up to 30.04.96. (iii) Defendant/Respondent will pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 2,655/- from 1.5.96 to 31.10.98. (iv) Defendant/Respondent will pay the further rent from 1.11.98 to till 31.12.98 @ Rs. (ii) Defendant/Respondent is directed to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 16,665/- up to 30.04.96. (iii) Defendant/Respondent will pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 2,655/- from 1.5.96 to 31.10.98. (iv) Defendant/Respondent will pay the further rent from 1.11.98 to till 31.12.98 @ Rs. 88.50/-per month and from 1.1.99 to till the date of vacation of disputed quarter @ Rs. 78.50/-+ Rs. 40/-( enhanced water charges) =  Rs. 118.50/- per month. 23. Respondent will bear his own cost and cost of Appellant to the extent of the afore mentioned amount of arrears of rent. 24. Advocate fee as per schedule or as per certificate (which ever is less). 25. Decree be drawn accordingly.