( 1 ) THE Division Bench hearing this appeal felt that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ratan-chand Firm v. Rajendra Kumar, 1969 MPLJ 672 : (AIR 1970 madh Pra 1 (FB)) required further consideration. The question formulated for opinion is as follows:-

"in appeal by the landlord against the dismissal of his suit for eviction under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act, is the landlord entitled to succeed if the tenant commits any default in the payment or deposit of current rent during the pendency of the appeal, even though the suit was rightly dismissed, as the tenant had fully complied with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the act upto the date of dismissal of the suit?"

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages, notice charges and ejectment from the suit premises against the respondent-defendant. This suit admittedly was on the ground provided in section 12 (1) fa) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). On an application of the defendant the trial Judge fixed the provisional rent as provided by Section 13 (2) of the Act. Later, the defendant submitted an application seeking relief under Section 13 (5) of the act. The trial Court found that the required deposits of rent having been made by the defendant-tenant, the condition necessary for Section 13 (5) of the Act are satisfied. He, therefore, held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim ejectment in this suit on the ground of Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act. Accordingly, he dismissed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment.

( 3 ) IT would be appropriate to refer that the trial Court by its order, dated 6-11970 had fixed case for issues and filing documents on 29-1-1970. But then it appears that the issues were never framed. The plaintiff had claimed Rs. 4,480/- as arrears of rent from 1-3-1967 to 30-4-1968 at the rate of Rs. 320/p. m. Since the trial Court found that there was a dispute about it within the meaning of Section 13 (2) of the Act, it had fixed the provisional rent. No doubt, the provisional rent fixed by the Court was the same i. e. Rs. 320/-p. m. as was claimed by the plaintiff but that does not make any difference so far as the requirement of deciding the question is concerned. The only effect of payment or deposit of rent by the tenant in accordance with Section 13 (1), is that no order or decree for eviction shall be passed against him as is contemplated by Sections 12 (3) and 13 (5) of the Act. There may be cases where the provisional rent fixed by the Court may be in between the figures claimed as rent by the landlord and the tenant. In such a suit there being a dispute as to the amount of rent and the Court having fixed the provisional rent, the issue in that behalf has to be decided. Either of the two i. e. the landlord or the tenant or both of them may be aggrieved by the finding on that issue or none may be aggrieved. ( 4 ) IN the present case the Division Bench has found that the suit was rightly dismissed as the tenant had fully complied with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act upto the date of dismissal of the suit. As stated in para 7 of the referring order the finding of the trial Court that the defendant had fully complied with the provisions of Section 13 (1) of the Act during the pendency of the suit was not questioned on behalf of the appellants. But there may be cases where the finding in this behalf may not be correct. Excepting for a situation like the one in hand, the questions whether the suit was rightly dismissed and whether the tenant had complied with Section 13 (1) of the Act till the decision of the suit, if raised, would bs decided by the judgment in the appeal. Tht learned Judges in para 12 of their referring order have observed that "there can be no doubt that the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act are applicable at least to some appeals, because Sub-section