SHIVDAYAL, J.

1. When this second appeal was placed before a learned single Judge for admission, he passed the following order:–

"The appeal is admitted for hearing on the following questions:–

1. (a) There being non-compliance with section 13 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in the trial Court as well as in the first appellate Court, that first appeal also being by the plaintiff–landlord, was section 13 (6) of the Act attracted in both the Courts below?

(b) For the same reason, was the plaintiff entitled to a decree on the ground contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act?

2. Is the Full Bench decision in S.S. Harishchandra Jain & others vs. Indersingh Bedi, 1977 JLJ 312, no longer in good law in view of the Supreme Court decision in Radha Kishan Sao vs. Gopal Modi & others, AIR 1977 SC 1217.

Issue notice to the other side for a date to be fixed in the office, P.F. within a week.

The aforesaid question No.2 arising for decision in this appeal, has naturally to be decided by a larger Bench in view of the fact that the correctness of the Full Bench decision in S.S. Harishchandra Jain & others vs. Indersingh Bedi, 1977 JLJ 312, has been challenged. The papers be therefore, laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for decision of the said question No.2 after the respondents are duly served."

As Harishchandra's case (supra) was decided by a Full Bench of five Judges, this Bench was constituted to reconsider the correctness of that decision. In Harishchandra's case it was held that section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) does not apply and no part of that section applies to an appeal, whether the appeal be by the tenant or by the landlord. It was further held that the Full Bench decision reported in Ratanchand Firm vs. Rajendra Kumar 1969 JLJ 859, did not lay down correct law. Section 13 of the Act enacts as follows:–

"When tenant can get benefit of protection against eviction–

(1) On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in section 12, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court to 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 upto 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.

(2) If, in any suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section (1), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Court shall fix a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation to be deposited or paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) till the decision of the suit or appeal.

(3) If, in any proceeding referred to in sub-section (1), there is any dispute as to the person, or persons to whom the rent is payable, the Court may direct the tenant to deposit with the Court the amount payable by him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and in such a case, no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit until the Court decides the dispute and makes an order for payment of the same.

(4) If the Court is satisfied that any dispute referred to in subsection (3) has been raised by a tenant for reasons which are false or frivolous, the Court may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the suit.

(5) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by subsection (1) or sub-section (2), no decree or order shall be made by the Court for the recovery of possession of the accommodation on the ground of default in the payment of rent by the tenant, bu