JUDGMENT

O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. :— The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the appellant-tenant from the suit premises on two grounds : (i) failure to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 158.25 despite service of notice of demand and, (ii) bona fide requirement of premises for landlords personal occupation. The second ground was rejected by all the subordinate courts and we are no longer concerned with that ground. In regard to the first ground, the trial court found that the tenant was in arrears of payment of rent but that the tenant was entitled to the protection of S. 12 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, as the tenant had deposited the arrears of rent within the time allowed by the Court on his application. When the appeal preferred by the landlord was pending before the Additional District Judge, Satna, the tenant filed an application for condonation of delay in depositing the rent, month by month, which had become payable after the filing of the suit, as stipulated by S. 13 (1) of the Act. It appears that, on several occasions, when the suit and the appeal were pending before the trial court and the appellate court respectively, the tenant had deposited the monthly rent a day or two or three, beyond the prescribed date. The amount had been received by the court and drawn out by the landlord, apparently without any protest. Taking advantage of the filing of the tenants application for condonation of delay, the landlord contended that the court had no power to extend the time for deposit of the monthly rent and that he was entitled to a decree for eviction consequent on the non-compliance with the provisions of S. 13 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. The appellate court negatived the landlords contention and dismissed the appeal. The landlord preferred a Second Appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court, holding that the court had no power to extend time, decreed the suit for eviction. The tenant, having obtained special leave, has appealed to this Court.

2. Shri Khanduja, learned counsel for the appellant, raised two contentions before us. The first contention was that the High Court was wrong in holding that the Court had no power to condone the delay in depositing the monthly rent falling due after the filing of the suit for eviction. The second contention was that, in the circumstances of the case, the respondent must be considered to have waived or abandoned the right to insist on disentitling the tenant of the protection to which he was otherwise entitled. Shri Naik, learned counsel for the respondent, contended to the contrary on both the questions.

3. The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. 1961, was enacted, as recited in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, "for the purpose of controlling, letting of and rents of residential and non-residential accommodation and giving adequate protection to tenants of such accommodation in areas where there is dearth of accommodation". Section 12 (1) of the Act provides that no suit shall be filed in any civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the grounds specified therein. Several grounds are specified, such as, failure to pay the arrears of rent after the service of notice of demand, unlawful sub-letting of the whole or part of the accommodation, creation of a nuisance, bona fide requirement of the accommodation by the landlord for his own occupation, causing of substantial damage to the accommodation etc. etc. The ground with which we are concerned is that mentioned in S. 12 (1) (a) and it is : "that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner". Thus, where a tenant is in arrears of rent, a landlord is obliged, before instituting a suit for eviction on that ground