JUDGMENT : Beingaggrieved by the order dated 4-11-2004 passed by X ADJ, Indore ,in M.A. No. 2/2004 whereby application filed by the appellant under Section 17(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (which shall be referredhereinafter as "Act") was allowed in part, present appeal has beenfiled. 2.Short facts of the case are that in the year 1979 respondent No. 4 filed a suitfor eviction against the appellant under Section 12 (1) (a), (b), (f) and (m)of the Act alleging that the appellant is tenant in the suit accommodationwhich requires by the respondent No. 4 bonafidely forcarrying on business. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 22-7-1985 against which appellantfiled first appeal which was numbered as 77/1985. Respondent No. 4 also filedappeal as the decree was refused under Section 12 (1) (b) and (m) of the Act.Vide judgment dated 19-1-1989 appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed andthe appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 was allowed and decree also passedunder Section 12 (1) (b) and (m) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment ofthe learned Appellate Court two appeals were filed which were allowed anddecree passed by learned Courts below were set aside against which SLP wasfiled by the respondent No. 4 before Hon'ble ApexCourt vide judgment dated 26-7-1995 and Hon'ble ApexCourt allowed the SLP filed by the respondent No. 4 and directed the appellantto vacant the suit accommodation on or before 31-12-1995. In compliance of thedecree passed by Hon'ble Apex Court possession was handed over by theappellant on 23-12-1995 .Thereafter and application was filed by appellant on 22-6-1996 under Section17(2) of the Act alleging that after obtaining the decree on the ground of bonafide requirement respondent No. 4 has sold the propertyto respondent Nos. 1 to 3 vide registered sale-deed dated 24-4-1996. It wasalleged that since decree was obtained on the ground of bonafide requirement, therefore, appellant be put into the possession of suitaccommodation. 1 to 3 vide registered sale-deed dated 24-4-1996. It wasalleged that since decree was obtained on the ground of bonafide requirement, therefore, appellant be put into the possession of suitaccommodation. The application was contested by the respondents on variousgrounds including on the ground that because of compelling circumstance therespondent No. 4 was left with no option except to sale the suit accommodation.After holding summary inquiry learned Trial Court allowed the application filedby the appellant vide order dated 24-11-2003 directing the respondents tohandover the possession against which appeal was filed under Section 31 of theAct on 4-11-2004 which was allowed and respondent No. 3 was directed to pay therent of one year as compensation against which the present appeal has beenfiled. 3.Learned Counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that theimpugned order passed by learned Appellate Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that since afterobtaining the decree on the ground for genuine requirement the suit propertywas sold by respondent No. 4 and the accommodation was not used for the purposefor which it was got vacated, therefore, learned Appellate Court committederror in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. LearnedCounsel for the appellant submits that learned Appellate Court has awardedcompensation as one year rent which was being paid by the appellant. It issubmitted that since appellant was tenant @ Rs . 2507-per month, therefore, in spite of allowing the application filed by theappellant the only compensation which has been awarded is of? 3,000/- which isnot at all adequate compensation. It is submitted that in the facts andcircumstances of the case appeal be allowed and judgment passed by learnedAppellate Court be set aside and order passed by learned RCA be restored. 4.Mr. G.M. Chaphekar , learned Sr. Advocate appearing onbehalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submit that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the bonafide purchaser who has purchased the suit accommodationvide registered sale-deed dated 22-6-1996 after making the payment of fullconsideration. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were having no knowledgethat the suit accommodation got vacated by the respondent No. 4 on the groundof bonafide requirement. It is submitted that learnedAppellate Court has rightly held that it is respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who areliable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that appeal filed by theappellant be dismissed. 5.Mr. 1 to 3 were having no knowledgethat the suit accommodation got vacated by the respondent No. 4 on the groundof bonafide requirement. It is submitted that learnedAppellate Court has rightly held that it is respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who areliable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that appeal filed by theappellant be dismissed. 5.Mr. A.K. Sethi , learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No. 4 submitsthat it is true that respondent No. 4 got the vacant possession of the suitaccommodation on 23-12-1995 and the suit accommodation was sold by the respondent No. 4 on 22-6-1996 . It is submitted that sincethe respondent No. 4 was owner of the suit accommodation and there werecompelling circumstance, therefore, respondent No. 4 was left with no optionexcept to sale the suit accommodation. It is submitted that in the facts andcircumstances of the case no illegality has been committed by learned AppellateCourt in passing the impugned judgment. It is submitted that appeal has nomerits and the same be dismissed. 6.Section 17 of the Act deals with recovery of possession for occupation andre-entry. It is submitted that in the facts andcircumstances of the case no illegality has been committed by learned AppellateCourt in passing the impugned judgment. It is submitted that appeal has nomerits and the same be dismissed. 6.Section 17 of the Act deals with recovery of possession for occupation andre-entry. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act reads as under: - "17.Recovery of possession for occupation and re-entry.- (1)*** *** *** (2)Where the landlord recovers possession of any accommodation as aforesaid andthe accommodation is not occupied by the landlord if he is the owner thereof,or by the person for whose benefit the accommodation is held, within two monthsof obtaining such possession, or the accommodation having been so occupied is,at any time within two years from the date of obtaining possession, re-let toany person other than the evicted tenant without obtaining the permission ofthe RCA under sub-section (1) or the possession of such accommodation istransferred to another person for reasons which do not appear to the RCA to be bonafide , the RCA may, on an application made to it in thisbehalf by such evicted tenant within such time as may be prescribed, direct thelandlord to put the tenant in possession of the accommodation or to pay himsuch compensation as the RCA thinks fit." 7.Thus, if the landlord recovers the possession of any accommodation on theground of bonafide requirement the landlord is boundto occupy the accommodation within two months of obtaining the possession.Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act puts further rider on landlord not tore-let the accommodation without permission of RCA or to transfer theaccommodation to another person and if the landlord transfers and fails tosatisfy the bonafide reason for transfer of theproperty, the RCA can direct the landlord to put the tenant into the possessionof suit accommodation or to pay him such compensation as it thinks fit. 8.Since property was transferred by the respondent No. 4 to respondent Nos. 1 to3 without disclosing the fact that the decree was passed under Section 12 (1)(f) of the Act and respondent No. 4 was having no authority to transfer theproperty within two years, in the circumstance respondent No. 4 has committedbreach of Section 17 (2) of the Act which has rightly been held by both theCourts below. 1 to3 without disclosing the fact that the decree was passed under Section 12 (1)(f) of the Act and respondent No. 4 was having no authority to transfer theproperty within two years, in the circumstance respondent No. 4 has committedbreach of Section 17 (2) of the Act which has rightly been held by both theCourts below. Since in spite of making efforts by the Counsel for appellantpresence of appellant could not be secured, therefore, it appears that it isnot a fit case wherein respondent Nos. 1 to 3 can be directed to put theappellant in possession of the accommodation. However, at the same timecompensation which has been awarded by the learned Appellate Court is alsoinadequate. In the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by theappellant is allowed in part. While maintaining the judgment passed by learnedAppellate Court to award compensation, it is directed that instead of one yearrent the respondents shall deposit a sum of? 75,000/- with the learned RCAwithin a period of two months which shall be payable to the appellant. Theamount of compensation shall be deposited by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 andrespondent No. 4 equally. In case of default on the part of respondent Nos. 1to 3, then, the appellant shall be entitled to exercise the right of re-entryin the suit accommodation. In case of default on the part respondent No. 4,appellant shall be entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. on the defaulted amountfrom the respondent No. 4. 9.With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.