1. This second appeal under section 100 of CPC has been preferred by the appellant-defendant against decree for eviction granted by the learned Courts below, in concurrent manner on the ground under section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”).

2. Short facts, relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit on grounds under sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d) of the Act for eviction of defendant/present appellant from suit accommodation (shop) and recovery of arrears of rent as well as mesne profits mainly with the allegations that the defendant had obtained the suit shop from the plaintiff @ Rs.600 p.m. on rent. It is averred in the plaint that the above said rent was paid up to the period of 31.8.2011 but thereafter same was due and not paid from 1.9.2011 till 30.11.2014 despite raising demand at several times and receiving registered notice sent by the plaintiff on 10.9.2014 prior to filing of the suit. In view of the above facts, the vacant possession of the suit shop with arrears of rent and mesne profit was prayed for by passing a decree for eviction against the defendant-tenant.

3. The defendant/tenant contested the suit. In his written statement it was contended by the defendant that the rate of rent was Rs.250/- per month which was paid at the same rate up to August, 2014 but the plaintiff did not issue any receipt to him. It is further submitted that the suit accommodation was not required bona fide but was instituted with an alternative motive of enhancement of rent.

4. On pleading of the parties, issues were framed by the learned trial Court and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit on all the above mentioned grounds in favour of the plaintiff vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.1.2016 in Civil Suit No.53-A/2016.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No.17-A/2016, which was partly allowed by the first lower appellate Court to the extent of granting decree for eviction on ground enumerated under section 12(1)(a) of the Act with further reliefs of arrears of rent and mense profit. In this manner, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings recorded by both the lowers Court are against the settled principles of law. He placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Jamnalal and others v. Radheshyam, reported in 2000(2) JLJ 1 (SC)=(2000) 4 SCC 380, to contend that the rate of rent and quantum of arrears of rent were disputed and the learned trial Court vide its interim order dated 12.2.2015 fixed the provisional rent rather deciding quantum of arrears of rent and therefore in that view of the matter, the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act shall not come into play and the decree passed by both the lower Courts under section 12(1)(a) of the Act being not sustainable in law deserves to be set aside.

7. After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant at length and perusing the findings recorded by both the lower Courts, it has come on record that the defendant-appellant Virendra Prajapati who examined himself as DW1 clearly admitted in para 10 of his cross-examination that vide receipt Ex.P-8 he had paid rent to the plaintiff landlord up to 31.8.2011 at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. Moreover, the said document also bears the signature of the appellant-tenant. Admittedly, the defendant failed to produce any receipt regarding payment of rent after above mentioned period though plaintiff was giving receipts with regard to receiving of rent. Hence, both the Courts have not erred in passing eviction decree and for arrears of rent from 1.9.2011.

8. It has been clearly held by the apex Court in the case of Jamnalal and others (supra), that where the rate of rent and the quantum of arrears of rent are disputed, whole of secti