( 1 ) THIS appeal has come up before us for disposal on a reference made by one of us. It arises out of a suit filed by the respondent Ramautar for the eviction of the appellant from a house situated in Katni.

( 2 ) THE eviction of the appellant was sought on the ground that the accommodation was required bona fide by the respondent-landlord for carrying out repairs which could not be carried out without the accommodation being vacated, and also on the ground that the appellant had neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent due from her within two months of the date of service of a notice in that behalf. The learned Civil Judge, Second Class, Murwara, who tried the suit, found that the plaintiff had failed to make out the ground of bona fide requirement for repairs. He also found that the appellant had not paid or tendered the arrears of rent due from her in spite of a notice asking her to pay the amount within two months of the date of service of the notice. He, however, held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to a decree for ejectment inasmuch as the appellant-tenant had deposited the rent amount due from her as required by Section 13 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation control Act. 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ). The trial Judge was of the view that as the tenant had not defaulted in the payment of rent for three consecutive months, therefore, in view of the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 12, read with Section 13 (5) of the Act, no decree of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent could be passed. Accordingly the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

( 3 ) IN the appeal which the plaintiff then filed, the First Additional District Judge jabalpur, decreed the plaintiff's claim. He found that the appellant did not deposit the arrears of rent within one month of service of notice on her as required by section 13 (1) of the Act. She made an application on 28th August 1964 for extension of time for making the deposit required of her under Section 13 (1) of the Act. This application was allowed and she made the deposit within the extended time, that is on 22nd September 1964. Thereafter, according to the date of the commencement of the tenancy and the provisions of Section 13 (1), the appellant was required to deposit, during the pendency of the suit, the rent for each month by the 27th day of the succeeding month. She did not do so. It was found by the learned Additional District Judge that the appellant deposited Rs. 10 on 1st December 1964, Rs. 5 on 1st February 1965, Rs. 15 on 7th April 1965, Rs. 10 on 23rd April 1965, and Rs. 10 on 15th June 1965; and that in view of this default on the part of the appellant spread over "a period much larger than a period of three consecutive months" the benefit of Sub-section (5) of Section 13 and of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 could not be given to the appellant. ( 4 ) IN the second appeal preferred by the tenant, it was contended on her behalf before the learned Single Judge that she had not made a default in the payment of rent during the pendency of the suit for three consecutive months and, therefore, she was entitled to the benefit of Sub-section (3) of Section 12. The learned Single judge thought it necessary to refer the case to a larger Bench because of the conflicting views expressed by this Court in some decisions on the question of the applicability of Section 12 (3) of the Act. In Chitra Kumar Tiwari v. Gangaram, 1966 MPLJ (NC) No. 178: S. A. No. 864 of 1965 D/- 17-1-1966, Shiv Dayal J. has held that the proviso to Section 12 (3) "does not come into play in a pending suit" on the other hand, in Ram Prasad v. Sunderlal, S. A. No. 302 of 1964 D/- 7-121964 (MP), Bhargava J. was inclined to hold that the "question of default under section 12 (3) could be agitated in the same suit". In that case, he observed that the proviso to Section 12 (3) --

"denies the benefit to the tenant if he having obtained such benefit once i