Oza, J. - 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant tenants against the judgment and decree for eviction passed by Civil Judge Class II Vidisha and on appeal maintained by the Additional District Judge Vidisha.

2. The appellants are the legal representatives of one Shrilal who was originally the tenant in the premises in dispute on rent of Rs. 30/- per month. The plaintiff respondents filed the present suit on the allegations that the defendant-tenant had not paid rent from 1-2-1958. The arrears were demanded by notice dated 30-11-1962 but the rent was not paid. By that notice the tenancy was also terminated with effect from 31-12-1962. The respondent filed the present suit for eviction on the ground under section 12 (1) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The defence of Shrilal was that he was not in arrears of rent at all. According to him the plaintiff-respondents used to purchase things from him on credit and in 1953 the accounts were settled and it was found that there were no arrears left against the defendant. He also denied receipt of the notice. On these facts the trial Court held the defence not proved and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for eviction as well as for arrears of rent. The appellate Court also maintained the decree and now this second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants.

3. The only question raised in this appeal before me is that there being a dispute about the quantum of arrears the trial Court was bound to pass an order fixing provisionally the quantum of arrears under section 13 (2) of the Act. And as that was not done it could not be said that the tenant-appellants were bound to deposit the arrears within one month of the service of the writ of summons and to continue to deposit the rent month to month. Learned counsel contended, therefore, that a decree for eviction against the appellants could not be passed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the Full Bench decision in Chhogalal v. Bhagwan Shri Satya Narain (Idol) 1975 JLJ 779 only lays down that where there is a dispute as contemplated under section 13 (2) of the Act, it is the duty of the Court to decide the provisional rent of the quantum of arrears of rent. In the present case the only dispute was regarding the quantum of arrears as according to the defendant he had adjusted the payment of these arrears in certain account of credit for supply of goods to the respondents. But there was no dispute regarding the monthly rent and therefore even if the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is accepted, the appellants could only be saved from the effect of not depositing the arrears of rent within one month from the service of the writ of summons; but there is nothing to justify their non depositing of rent every month and that itself could be sufficient to maintain the decree for eviction. Learned counsel also contended that in fact in was not a case of dispute about the quantum of arrears hut the stand taken by the defendant-appellants was that the amount has been paid; and therefore the provisions of section 13 (2) of the Act will not be attracted. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that if the Court has failed in its duty to fix provisionally the quantum of arrears of rent under section 13 (2) the Full Bench decision lays down that the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 13 are suspended and in that view of the matter the appellants were not even bound to deposit monthly rent although there was no dispute regarding monthly rent. In support or his contention learned counsel referred to an unreported decision in. Jhammanlal v. Mintibai SA No. 179 of 1970 decided on: 5-8-1976(Gwalior)

5. The plaintiffs in the plaint paragraph 2 alleged that rent from 1-2-1958 was due and therefore by notice dated 30-11-1962 a demand was made. In the written-statement paragraph 2 of the plaint was