( 1 ) THIS appeal was first heard by Bachawat, J. sitting singly. He found difficulty in reconciling two Division Bench decisions of this Court on the construction of section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommo-dation Control Act, 1961. These division Bench cases are : Firm Ganeshram Harivilas v. Ramchandra 1970 MPTJ 902 = (AIR 1971 Madh Pra 104) and Jivrambhai v. Amarsingh 1972 MPTJ 785 = (AIR 1973 Madh Pra 165 ). The learned Judge, therefore referred to a Division bench the following question of law;

"whether the operation of Section 13 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh accommodation Control Act, 1961 is arrested so far as the deposit of rent according to it, is concerned and it remains in suspense until the court fixes a provisional rent since when the dispute is raised by the defendant-tenant in his written statement, or it would be so since when the defendant-tenant makes an application inviting the attention of the Court to the specific dispute and asks the Courts to fix the provisional rent?"

When the reference came up before a Division Bench (Oza and Sohani, JJ.), the learned Judges considered that as the question required reconsideration of two division Bench decisions, the reference should be heard by a Full Bench. On their recommendation this Full Bench was constituted to hear the reference.

( 2 ) THE material facts pertaining to the question referred to us are that the defendant-appellant is a tenant of the plaintiff-respondent and is in occupation in that capacity of a part of house No. 716 situated at Neemuch. The suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted on 8th July 1963 by the respondent for eviction of the appellant and for arrears of rent. The appellant's ejectment was sought on various grounds one of them being under Section 12 (1) (a) of the act. The respondent's case was that the appellant was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-, and that there was failure on his part to pay the arrears of rent within two months from the service of the notice of demand. The suit was decreed ex parte on 13th December 1963. On the appellant's application that he was not served with the summons of the suit, the ex parte decree was set aside. The appellant, soon thereafter, filed his written statement on 2nd April 1964. In his written statement the appellant pleaded that the rent of the house to begin with was Rs. 2/- per month and it was first enhanced to Rs. 2/8/- per month and then to Rs. 3/- per month and that there was never any agreement to pay the rent of Rs. 5/- per month. It was also pleaded that the appellant on receiving notice sent all the arrears at the rate of Rs. 3/- Per month, and that some amount of rent was deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 132/- as arrears, of rent, calculated at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month, on the very date he filed his written statement and in that context pleaded that as all the arrears were deposited within one month as required by Section 13 (1) of the Act, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The trial Court did not fix any reasonable provisional rent as required by Section 18 (2) of the Act, The appellant continued to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month during the pendency of the suit,

( 3 ) THE trial Court in its final judgment came to the conclusion that the rent of the house was Rs. 5/- per month and not Rs. 3/- per month as alleged by the appellant and that the appellant was liable to eviction under Section 12 (1) (a)of the Act. In appeal the appellate Court agreed with the finding that the rent was Rs. 5/- per month and that as the appellant tendered arrears of rent after notice of demand at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month and not at the rate of Rs. 5/per month, the ground under Section 12 (1) (a) was made out. The appellate court, however, held that the appellant by depositing the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month and by continuing to deposit rent at that rate during the pendency of the suit in the tr