Short Note : 1. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that although a ground under section 12 (1) (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") existed as the appellant-tenant did not pay the arrears of rent within two months, of the notice of demand but he deposited the amount according to learned counsel within one month of the service of the writ of summons; and therefore the respondents are not entitled to a decree under section 12 (1) (1). Learned counsel frankly conceded that in depositing the rent every month as required by the second part of sub-clause (1) of section 13 of the Act the tenant-appellant no doubt has committed defaults on some occasions. Held : Section 13 (1) of the Act requires a tenant to deposit within one month of the service of the writ of summons all arrears of rent and further requires him to deposit Or pay month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. It is therefore clear that if the tenant complies with the two conditions in section 13 (1), then alone he is entitled to the protection under section 12 (3) of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case the tenant committed default in depositing monthly rent and therefore it could not be contended that he has complied with both the conditions required under section 13 (1) of the Act. He is therefore not entitled to the protection under sub-clause (3) of section 12 of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 1967 D/30-4-1968 Gangadevi v. Vishwanath Singh, 1968 JLJ SN 63, has taken the same view. Consequently, the decree passed against the appellant under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act could not be interfered with. 1968 JLJ SN 63, relied on. Appeal dismissed.