( 1 ) THE following question has been referred to this Bench for opinion:--"whether in compliance with the requirement of Sub-section (1) of section 13, is it necessary for the defendant-tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit in Court the amount of arrears of rent, the equivalent Citation: recovery of which has become barred by limitation and which the landlord-plaintiff on his part cannot recover by process in the Court?"

( 2 ) THE appellants' suit instituted in the court of the Fourth Civil Judge, Class II, raipur, was for ejectment of the defendant-tenant and for recovery of Rs. 648 as arrears of rent and Rs. 90 as damages for use and occupation. It appears that the plaintiffs claimed in the suit arrears of rent for the period from July 1, 1962 to Aug. 31, 1969. The suit was instituted on February 10, 1970, which means that the claim included partly arrears which had become barred by time. A notice of demand of arrears of rent and to quit had been served on the defendant on July 19, 1969, in which arrears had been claimed from as back as july 1, 1959. The tenant had paid Rs. 649, which the landlord adjusted towards the arrears from July 1, 1959, to June 30, 1962, and then claimed in the suit arrears for the aforesaid period i. e. , July 1, 1962 to Aug. 31, 1969.

( 3 ) AFTER the institution of the suit, the, defendant-tenant deposited Rs. 828 and it is not in dispute that this deposit was within one month from the date of service of the summons of the suit on him and it is also not in dispute that thereafter he continued to deposit regularly monthly rent as required under the second part of Section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act' ).

( 4 ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit by giving the defendant benefit of the statutory protection under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. The plaintiffs appealed but their appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge. The plaintiffs preferred second appeal to this Court. At the hearing before a learned single Judge it was urged that the defendant had not deposited the entire arrears of rent under Section 13 (1) of the Act It is again not in dispute that the defendant deposited all rent for which the suit, on the date of its institution had not become barred by time. The appellants' contention before the learned single Judge, so far as this aspect of the case is concerned was that in order to entitle the defendant to the protection under Section 12 (3) of the act, it was necessary for him to deposit all arrears of rent irrespective of whether their remedy by way of a suit for the recovery of a part of it was barred by time. On the other hand, it was contended for the defendant-respondent that his only obligation under Section 13 of the Act was to deposit such arrears of rent as were legally recoverable, but not those which were barred by limitation and, therefore, not recoverable. For the appellants reliance was placed on Abdul gafoor v. Abde Ali, 1973 MPLJ 179. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that in view of the observations in New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram air 1976 SC 1637 the decision in Abdur Gafoor v. Abde Ali (1973 MPLJ 179) (supra), which was decided by and Division Bench, required reconsideration. That is haw the matter has come before us.

( 5 ) THE contest between the parties before us is the same as was before the learned single Judge.

( 6 ) LEARNED Advocate-General appeared as amicus curiae. Equivalent Citation:

( 7 ) SECTION 12 of the Act imposes restrictions on eviction of tenants. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 enumerates the grounds on one or more of which alone a suit can be filed against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) affords a ground to the landlord for eviction, if the tenant 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