Bhave, J. - 1. This second appeal is by the defendants against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed by the lower appellate Court. The decree is based on two grounds, namely, that the house was required bonafide by the plaintiffs for carrying on their own business and that the defendants were in arrears of rent. Both these grounds are challenged before me.

2. The house in question is situated in Bazar Chowk, Satna, while the plaintiffs reside at village Nadan, Tahsil Maihar, where they carryon their business. The plaintiff's case is that the house was given to the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs. 275/- for the purposes of business that between the time the house was rented out and the date of the suit the family of the plaintiffs has grown in volume; that the income from the business carried on at Nadan is net sufficient for the upkeep of the family and there is no possibility of expanding the business at Nadan; that the adult members of the family, namely, Jawaharlal and Radhyeshyam, under the guidance of Tirath Prasad, desire to start the wholesale business in cloth and kirana at Satna, where they have no other accommodation of their own, for the; purpose; that the necessity of starting the business is genuine for the upkeep of the growing family; and that the family has sufficient experience of the business. It was also pleaded that the defendants were in arrears of rent from 1-10-1961; till 31-5-1962 which was also not paid even after notice till the filing of the suit.

3. In defence it was stated that the rent of the house was fixed at Rs. 175/- with effect from 1-8-1961 by the Rent Controlling Authority and that the defendants had sent the rent for the period 1-10-1961 to 31-5-1962 by a cheque on the Punjab National Bank under a registered cover which was returned by the plaintiffs. It was also pleaded that the house was mainly for residential purposes and that there was no necessity of starting the business at Satna. The income from the business at Nadan was sufficient and that this fact could be inferred from the fact that the plaintiffs could acquire house property worth Rs. 50,000/- at Satna. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs wanted to increase the rent from Rs. 275/- to Rs. 500/- and as the defendants got the rent fixed at Rs. 175/- per month before the Rent Controller, the present suit for ejectment was filed. It was, therefore, stated that the need of the plaintiffs was not bona fide.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a case for genuine need and that the defendants were not in arrears of rent.

5. On the question of arrears of rent, the lower appellate Court, on the basis of two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Mohanlal Vs. Kanwar Sen AIR 1954 All. 480 and Shaligram Vs. Jaigopal AIR 1955 All. 350, held that sending of the cheque was not tender of the rent according to law and that the plaintiffs were within their rights in refusing to accept the same and that the default thus continued till the filing of the suit. The Lower Appellate Court further held that the defendants failed to apply under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act to get the rent provisionally fixed by the Court nor did they deposit the amount at the rate provisionally fixed by the Court. Not only that but the amount deposited by the defendants at the rate of Rs. 175/- was subsequently withdrawn by them. Even at the appellate stage the monthly rent was not deposited. The defendants, therefore, were not entitled to any protection under section 12 (3) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for ejectment.

6. Shri Dabir, learned counsel for the appellants, urged that the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that the defendants did not tender the whole of the arrears of rent within two months of the date on which the notice of demand for arrears of rent as contemplated under sect