ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 23.8.2002 passed in First appeal No. 224 of 1997.

3. The appellant is the landlord of the premises in uestion and the respondent is a tenant therein. The ppellant filed a suit for eviction against the tenant on wo grounds (i) default in payment of rent; (ii) bonafide eed.

4. As regards the first point, the High Court has ecorded a finding of fact that the entire rent has been deposited by the tenant in compliance with the order of the High Court passed in a revision petition and hence we cannot interfere with the finding of the High Court on that point.

5. Shri S.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the tenant has paid the rent up to the proceedings in the High Court, if he has committed default in payment of rent after the judgment of the High Court and during the pendency of the special leave petition/appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before this Court, the provisions of Section 13(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) will apply and the defen