K.L. Issrani, J.

1. This is a second appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 12-7-1988, passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 8-A of 1984, arising out of the Judgment and decree dated 5-5-1983, passed by the Second Civil Judge Class II, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 68-A of 1980.

2. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a civil suit for ejectment against and original tenant Jeetmal amongst other grounds under Section 12(1)(a) and (e) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that though she is required to live at Bhilai on account of service of her husband, her husband is not able to get allotment of any accommodation at Bhilai. She, therefore, wants to reside in her own house at Rajnandgaon, wherefrom her husband will up down for service at Bhilai. She also claimed arrears of rent at Rs. 25/- per month from July, 1979.

3. In defence, the defendant denied the requirement of the plaintiff/appellant to be bona fide. Regarding arrears of rent, he submitted that since the defendant demanded receipt of the rent paid but was not given by the plaintiff, the amount of rent demanded could not be paid. The other reason given was that the amount was spent in repairs which was to be adjusted by the plaintiff. Since it was not adjusted, the balance amount was not paid to the plaintiff.

4. The suit was decreed by the trial Court under Section 12(1)(a) and (e) of the Act. On appeal by the original defendant/tenant Jeetmal, the lower appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Before the first appellate Court, the original tenant Jeetmal expired and his legal representatives, the present respondents, were brought on record. Hence this second appeal.

5. This Court, while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law :

"(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate Court erred in law in setting aside the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and in giving finding that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to evict the defendants-respondents from the suit accommodation on the grounds specified in Clauses (a) and (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12, of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961?

(2) Whether the appeal that had been filed by the deceased-defendant Jeetmal before the first appellate Court had abated and the said abatement having become final, the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant could not be set aside by the first appellate Court?"

6. Regarding the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, as shown above, admittedly, the arrears of rent were not paid to the plaintiff/appellant even after notice of demand Ex. P-17. The amount was also not deposited in Court as required under Section 13(1) of the Act, even after the order of the trial Court dated 19-9-1981 on deciding the dispute under Section 13(2) of the Act. P. W. 3 R.L. Mishra, the Nazir of the Court, was examined to prove the deposits and the manner of deposit. According to him, on 5-10-1981, the defendant had deposited an amount of Rs. 275/-. On 17-10-1981, the defendant had deposited Rs. 300/- and so also on 18-10-1982, the defendant had deposited an amount of Rs. 300/-. Further, an amount of Rs. 75/- was deposited on 17-1-1983 and Rs. 25/- on 16-2-1983. Thereafter, nothing was deposited. The Judgment of the trial Court was passed on 5-5-1983. This witness was not cross-examined by the defendant. According to the plaintiff-appellant, no amount was deposited before the lower appellate Court also. But the counsel for the respondents submits that the amount was deposited before the lower appellate Court.

7. To avoid the decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, it is necessary that the tenant should deposit the arrears of rent as per Sub-section (1) of Section