ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Second Appeal No. 167 of 1995, dated 14.12.2011 upholding the dismissal of the appellants' suit for eviction of the respondents.

3. The appellants are the landlords of a shop where Goverdhan Bhai, the predecessor of the respondents was doing business. This tenancy was created in the year 1968 and was continued. The appellants filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent according to the agreement for the period prior to the suit. At this stage, we are not concerned with the other grounds on which the suit was filed.

4. During the pendency of the suit the payment of rent is governed by Section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") which was in force in the town of Raipur. This Act was subsequently replaced by the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in the year 2000. The two acts are in pari materia.

5. Before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, it was mainly argued by the appellants that the rent due to be paid by the tenant was Rs. 250/- per month. This not having been paid at that rate, he was liable for eviction. We see no merit in this ground in view of the fact that the Trial Court had by an order dated 12.10.1985 fixed provisional rent at the rate of Rupees 150/- per month. It is not in dispute that the tenant continued to pay the rent at this rate. Merely because he admitted in his evidence that the agreed amount was Rupees 250/- per month is not a ground for evicting him, particularly in view of Section 13 (2) of the Act which reads as follows :

"If in any suit or proceedings referred to in sub-section (1) there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Court shall, on a plea made either by landlord or tenant in that behalf which shall be taken at the earliest opportunity during such suit or proceedings, fix a reasonable provisional rent, in relation to the accommodation, to be deposited or paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) and no court shall, save for reasons to be recorded in writing, entertain any plea on this account at any subsequent stage."

The purpose of fixing provisional rent during a dispute is to ascertain the amount that must be paid by a tenant during the proceedings. It is normally not the agreed rent. Neither is it the rent, claimed to be the rent by the parties, which is often disputed. The parties cannot, relying on the statements in evidence, claim such rent. But parties pay the amount provisionally fixed by the Court until altered. They cannot claim a default on the basis of the rent stated by them in the evidence.

6. Thus, a plain reading of the Section 13(2) requires the tenant to pay a provisional rent as fixed by the Court. The tenant in this case has made payment accordingly.

7. The other contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that during the pendency of the appeals, the tenant has not paid the provisional rent of Rupees 150/-. This period commenced on 26.02.1993, when the trial Court decided the suit and fixed the rent at Rs. 250/- per month upto the decision of the Second Appeal on 14.11.2011.

8. According to the appellants, the tenant did pay rent intermittently. However, what is of consequence is whether the tenant paid rent as required by sub-sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act which read as follows :

"13(1) When tenant can get benefit of protection against eviction-(1) On a suit or any other proceedings being instituted by a landlord in any of the grounds referred to in section 12 or in any appeal or any of other proceedings by a tenant against any decree or order for his eviction, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of writ of summons or notice of appeal or of any other proceeding, or within one month of institution of appeal or any other proceeding by the tenant as the case may be, or within such fu