JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal by the defendant-tenant arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a shop situated at Pratapgarh admittedly let out to the defendant on the monthly rent of Rs. 9. The plaintiff sought eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on three grounds : (1) That the defendant had neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for more than six months. (2) That the premises were required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord. (3) That the suit premises had become unsafe for human habitation. The suit was contested by the defendant who denied all material allegations. The trial Court has recorded the following findings : (1) That the landlord has failed to prove that he required the premises reasonably and bond fide for his own use. (2) That the landlord has failed to prove that the suit premises have become unsafe for human habitation. (3) That the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for more than six months. 2. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree the defendant-tenant preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Pratapgarh who affirmed all the findings arrived at by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The defendant tenant has now preferred this second appeal. 3. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 was amended by Ordinance No. 26/1975. This Ordinance was subsequently adopted by the Legislature in the form of Amendment Act, the tenant moved an application for determination of arrears of rent, interest thereon and costs of the suit. The Court vide its order dated 10.5.1976 determined the amount and directed the defendant to pay the determined amount on or before July 12, 1976. The defendant paid the determined amount within the prescribed time. Section 13A(b) provides that on such payment being made within the time fixed by the Court the proceedings shall be dismissed as if defendant had not committed any default. In view of the above provision of law, the decree for eviction based on default of payment of rent cannot be sustained. 4. Section 13A(b) provides that on such payment being made within the time fixed by the Court the proceedings shall be dismissed as if defendant had not committed any default. In view of the above provision of law, the decree for eviction based on default of payment of rent cannot be sustained. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent tried to support the decree passed by the Courts below on the ground that the landlord required the premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use. The plaintiff Indermal has stated that the required the shop as he had taken a contract of gum. He however, filed to produce any satisfactory evidence showing that he has taken any Theka of Gum. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he required the suit shop reasonably and bonafide for his own use. This is a finding of fact and cannot be challenged in second appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent next tried to support the decree on the ground that the suit shop has become unsafe for human habitation. In this connection learned counsel placed reliance on notices Ex. 5, Ex. 6 and Ex. 7 received by the plaintiff from the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Chhittorgarh. I have gone through these notices and I find that the notices do not relate to the suit shop. All these notices related to the building known as Mahal which is said to be in a dilapidated condition. It is true that the suit shop is situated adjacent to the building known as Mahal but from that it cannot be inferred that the suit shop has become unfit or unsafe for human habitation. Both the Courts below have also come to the same conclusion and I find no good reason to interfere with that finding. 6. In the result the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are set aside and the suit is dismissed. Since the defendant has paid already the costs of all the three Courts it is not necessary to pass any order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******