Bhachawat, J.

This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment dated 31-1-1968 in Civil Appeal No. 202-A/66 by the Additional District Judge, Vidisha, whereby he reversed the judgment of the Civil Judge, Class II, Vidisha dated 9-11-1966 in Civil Original Suit No. 89-A/65 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellant against the defendant respondent for ejectment and arrears of rent.

2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal are these. The defendant respondent was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises at the rent of Rs. 18/- per month on 15-4-1959 by the plaintiff appellant. On 15-4-1965, the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment on the ground under section 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that the defendant was in arrears of rent since 1-6-1962 which he failed and neglected to pay within two months the arrears of rent from the service of the composite notice (Ex. P/3) of demand of arrears of rent and determining the tenancy of the defendant. The defendant while controverting the plaint allegations; inter alia, contended that on 22-6-1964, he had cleared off all the arrears of rent upto 16-6-1964 and nothing was due and payable by him to the plaintiff towards the rent till 16-6-1964. The trial Court found that the defendant had committed a default in the payment of the rent and he was in arrears of rent as contended by the plaintiff and having found the ground under section 12 (1) (a) proved, decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant, the lower appellate Court found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that there were arrears of rent against the defendant and on that ground, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

3. During the course of the arguments, a controversy has arisen that even if the defendant is found to be in arrears as contended by the plaintiff no order under sub-section (2) of S. 13 of the Act having been passed regarding deposit towards the arrears of rent as claimed in the suit, the suit could not be decreed. The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant was that there are two limbs of S. 13 (1) of the Act: (i) regarding the deposit of the arrears of rent within one month of the service of the writ of summons or within the period extended by the Court and (ii) the deposit of the monthly rent month by month the 15th of each succeeding month during the pendency of the suit and similarly, under sub-section (2) of S.13 the order contemplated is only with regard to the dispute which may be either about the arrears of rent or about the rate or it may be both. His argument was that in the instant case as the defendant had raised the dispute, by pleading payment, only with regard to the arrears of rent and not with regard to the rate of rent, it was obligatory on the defendant even in absence of an order under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act to have continued to deposit the monthly rent month by month by the 15th of every succeeding month and merely on account of the dispute with regard to the arrears of rent, the operation of the whole of section 13(1) of the Act was not arrested.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the moment, a dispute is raised-may it relate to the arrears of rent and there may be no dispute with regard to the rate of rent in view of the Full Bench decision in Chhogalal v. Idol of Shri Bhagwan Shri Satya Narain 1975 JLJ 779 = 1975 MPLJ 657 the operation of the whole of section 13 (1) of the Act is arrested.

5. On the aforesaid question i.e. as to what is the effect of the dispute which is only with regard to the arrears of rent and not with regard to the rate on the operation of section 13 (1) of the Act the learned counsel for the parties have pointed out two Single Bench decisions of this Court wherein there is an apparent conflict on this question :-

(i) Civil Second Appeal No. 17:- of 1970 - Jhammanlal v. Mahila Mintibai, decided on 5-8-1976,