JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by judgment dated 6-9-2001 passed by II Additional District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2000, whereby judgment dated 30-8-1999 passed by III Civil Judge Class II, Ratlam, whereby in a suit filed by Respondent under Section 12(1)(a), (f), (m) and (o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short which shall be referred as to the Act) was decreed under Section 12(1)(a), (m) and (o) of the Act was maintained, present appeal has been filed. 2. The appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 24-6-2002 on the following substantial questions of law 1) Whether lower Appellate Court was justified in passing the decree under Section 12(1)(m) of the Act without complying the requirement of Section 12(10) of the Act? 2) Whether lower Appellate Court was justified in confirming the decree under Section 12(o) of the Act without complying the requirements of Section 12(11) of the Act? 3) Whether lower Appellate Court was justified in confirming the decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act when there was no issue framed? 4) Whether lower Appellate Court was justified in affirming the decree under Section 12(1)(a) when there was no material to sustain such decree? 3. Short facts of the case are that Respondent filed a suit for eviction against the Appellant on 18-1-1996 alleging that Respondent is owner of a house situated at Mohalla Kaddus Masjid, Ratlam bearing House No. 4, Room No. 19 Rs. 35/- per month. It was alleged that Appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 18-5-1995, which has not been paid in spite of notice of demand dated 18-7-1995, which was duly received. It was alleged that the accommodation in which Appellant is in occupation is in dilapidated condition. The terrace of the suit accommodation was damaged from where water is leaking and there are number of cracks in the suit accommodation. Thus, the suit accommodation is not fit for occupation. It was alleged that Respondent intends to construct the suit accommodation for which the Respondent is having sufficient funds. It was alleged that Respondent requires the suit accommodation bona fidely for the need of his son. It was further alleged that Appellant has encroached the open land adjoining to the suit accommodation and has constructed a bathroom without the permission of the Respondent. It was alleged that Appellant has caused damage to the property of the Respondent. It was alleged that Respondent requires the suit accommodation bona fidely for the need of his son. It was further alleged that Appellant has encroached the open land adjoining to the suit accommodation and has constructed a bathroom without the permission of the Respondent. It was alleged that Appellant has caused damage to the property of the Respondent. It was alleged that Appellant is in habit of quarrel. On the basis of these pleadings decree of eviction was prayed. The suit was contested by filing written statement, wherein it was not disputed that Appellant is tenant in the suit accommodation ' Rs. 35/- per month. It was also not denied that Appellant is in arrears of rent. However, so far as other grounds are concerned, plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that Respondent is entitled for decree of eviction on any of the grounds. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(a), (m) and (o) of the Act, which was maintained, hence this appeal. 4. Shri A.K. Sethi, Senior Advocate appearing for Appellant, argued at length and submits that impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel submits that eviction was prayed by the Respondent under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. No issue has been framed by the learned trial Court to the effect that any case is made out for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Learned Counsel submits that issues framed by the trial Court whether Appellant is irregular in payment of rent and whether Appellant is in arrears of rent. It is submitted that issue No. 2 is answered in favour of the Appellant while issue No. 1 has been decided against Appellant. Learned Counsel submits that even if issue No. 1 is decided against Appellant then too no decree of eviction can be passed against the Appellant. Learned Counsel submits that there is no finding of any of the Courts that the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act is made out. Learned Counsel submits that learned Courts below has not taken into consideration the fact that ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act is made out or not. Learned Counsel submits that there is no finding of any of the Courts that the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act is made out. Learned Counsel submits that learned Courts below has not taken into consideration the fact that ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act is made out or not. It is submitted that learned Courts below has only taken into consideration that compliance under Section 13(1) of the Act is made or not. Learned Counsel submits that unless and until Court comes to the conclusion that ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act is made out, no decree could have been passed against the Appellant. 5. Learned Counsel submits that so far as non-compliance of Section 13(1) of the Act is concerned, that gives a rise to the Respondent to get the defence struck of out on that basis no decree of eviction can be passed. So far as decree under Section 12(1)(m) and (o) of the Act is concerned, learned Counsel submits that Respondent failed to prove that the construction, which has been raised by the Appellant was detrimental to the interest of Respondent. It is submitted that in that regard also no issue has been framed by the trial Court. Apart from this learned Counsel submits that there is no finding of the trial Court in that regard. Learned Counsel submits that even if it is assumed that case under Section 12(1)(m) or (o) of the Act is made out then too no order of eviction can be passed until and unless direction is given under Section 12(10) and 12(11) of the Act. It is submitted that appeal filed by the Appellant be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 6. Shri R.C. Chhazed, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below in passing the decree against the Appellant. Learned Counsel submits that findings recorded by the learned Courts below are concurrent finding of fact, which requires no interference while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted that only on this short ground appeal deserves to be dismissed. So far as validity of the decree under Section 12(1)(m) of the Act is concerned, the case of the Respondent is that Appellant has raised construction by constructing Barsati over the suit accommodation. It is submitted that only on this short ground appeal deserves to be dismissed. So far as validity of the decree under Section 12(1)(m) of the Act is concerned, the case of the Respondent is that Appellant has raised construction by constructing Barsati over the suit accommodation. So far as Section 12(1)(o) of the Act is concerned, case of the Respondent is that Appellant has constructed a room and bathroom by making encroachment. Both the Courts below have found that the construction has been raised by the Appellant. The encroached portion has also been shown in the map Ex.P/5 where the room and bathroom has been constructed by the Appellant. Appellant himself has admitted that Appellant has raised construction. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts below so far as it relates to under Section 12(1)(m) and (o) of the Act is concerned, are based on due appreciation of evidence, which requires no interference. So far as decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act is concerned, learned Counsel submits that the only ground, which has been raised by the Appellant is that no specific issue was framed by the learned trial Court to the effect that by not tendering the rent after receipt of notice ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act is made out or not. Learned Counsel submits that it is true that specific issue was not framed by the learned trial Court. On the contrary issue was framed that whether Appellant has committed default in payment of rent and the another issue was framed whether Appellant is in arrears of rent. The answer to the second issue was in favour of the Appellant and it does not mean that Appellant was not in arrears of rent at the time when notice was sent. Similarly it is not in dispute that Appellant was not regular in payment of rent as after service of summons of the suit on 5-2-1996 no amount of rent was deposited by the Appellant under Section 13(1) of the Act within a period of one month. On the contrary the rent was deposited by the Appellant for the first time on 24-10-1996 i.e. after more than eight months. On the contrary the rent was deposited by the Appellant for the first time on 24-10-1996 i.e. after more than eight months. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Ganpat Rao v. Ashok Rao 2004 (3) MPLJ 571 , wherein this Court has held that trial will not be vitiated for not framing specific issue on the question if parties understood each other's case and led evidence and contested the matter on that particular issue. In the matter of Sayeda Akhtar v. Abdul Ahad: (2003) 7 SCC 52 , Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the impact of non-framing the issues and held that yet parties being aware thereabout adducing evidence and also advancing their respective submissions as demonstrated in such circumstances no prejudice caused nor were the proceedings were vitiated. 7. In the present case Appellant has contested the case right from beginning and has denied the allegations made in the plaint. The issue was also framed regarding arrears of rent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that because of the fact that no specific issue under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act was framed, therefore, Appellant was not aware that the decree of eviction was prayed against the Appellant. Since the Appellant was in arrears of rent and the same was not tendered under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act after receipt of notice and also not deposited the rent under Section 13(1) of the Act in time, therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani: (2005) 7 SCC 211 , wherein the Apex Court held that the Court has consistently taken the view that in the rent control legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in passing the decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act only on account that no specific issue was framed. 8. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in passing the decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act only on account that no specific issue was framed. 8. It is true that before passing any decree under Section 12(1)(m) or (o) of the Act, it is mandatory on the part of the Court below to give an opportunity to the Appellant/tenant to restore the position under Section 12(10) and 12(11) of the Act but in the present case since the decree was also passed by the learned trial Court under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, therefore, compliance of Section 12(10) and 12(11) of the Act was not necessary. In view of this appeal filed by the Appellant has no merits and is hereby dismissed. However, the order of eviction shall not be executable on or before 31-7-2011 on the condition that the Appellant herein files an undertaking before the learned trial Court within six weeks to the following effect namely i) That, the Appellant herein shall not induct any other person in the suit premises and shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to the Respondent/landlord on or before the date mentioned hereinabove. ii) That, the Appellant herein shall pay to the Respondent/landlord arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today and shall pay to the Respondent/landlord future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before the 10th day of every month. 9. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.