The deposit of rent under S. 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is intended to provide equitable relief to the tenant and to ensure that the landlord receives compensation for the use and occupation of the premises. The amount deposited is not refundable even if the tenant was in arrears of rent.

( 1 ) THE only substantial question which has been framed in this suit at the time of admission of its appeal is "whether the amount deposited by the tenant in compliance to the provisions of S. 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, can be allowed to be refunded to the tenant even though the tenant was in arrears of rent and had deposited the same to seek protection against eviction. "

( 2 ) THE only relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are these : there is a small shop which was let out by the appellant/landlord to the respondent/ tenants/defendants round about the year 1972 or 1973. The respondents/tenants defaulted in payment of rent. Hence, the present suit was filed by the appellant/landlord for eviction of the respondents/tenants from the suit premises. The issues framed in the suit were: (I) Whether the defendants could be evicted from the disputed premises or not? (ii) Whether the defendants had defaulted in the payment of rent on account of which they could be evicted? (iii) Whether the plaintiff/landlord was entitled to a sum of Rs. 150/- per month as rent or as compensation for occupation by the tenants? the answer with regard to all these three issues were in favour of the landlord/ appellant. It may be mentioned here that the question with regard to the rate of rent being Rs. 150/- per month which was claimed by the appellant landlord was disputed by the tenants/defendants who are respondents here. As already stated above, the trial Court on a discussion of evidence on record found that the claim of the plaintiff/ appellant with regard to the rate of rent being Rs. 150/- per month was correct. All the three issues which were decided in favour of the appellant by the trial Court were upheld in appeal filed by the tenants/defendants in the court of appeal below which had affirmed the decree for eviction.

( 3 ) THE court of appeal below, however, while upholding the decree directed the appellant to refund any amount deposited in terms of S. 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Act No. XLI of 1961) for the period before institution of the suit. It is against this direction which has been incorporated as a part of the decree of the lower appellate Court that the appellant has come before this Court. I think the point is simple and the appeal has to be allowed. The relevant portion of S. 13 (1) of the Act of 1961 reads as follows:"13 ( 1): On a suit. . . . . . . . . being instituted by a landlord on any of the grounds referred to in S. 12 or in any appeal or any other proceedings. . . . . . . . . the tenant shall, within one month of the service of writ of summons or notice or appeal. . . . . . . . . as the case may be, or within such further time as the Court may on an application made to it allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made; and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate till the decision of the suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be. "it is quite clear that such a provision for the protection of the tenant from eviction by the landlord or the peril and hazard of having his defence struck out under S. 13 (6) has been incorporated by subsequent insertion of S. 13 (1), (2) and (6) of the Act with effect from 16-8-1983. This enabling provision has been incorporated beneficial to the defaulting or erring tenant as well as protecting the landlord's interest for damages for the use and occupation of the premises comprising the leasehold during the time that the protracted litigation continues in Courts of law. One thing which is remarkable is that the payment which is in deposit or payment of