Short Note : 1. This was a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for eviction filed on several grounds but not one under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The trial Court negatived the entire case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The learned District Judge affirmed the trial Court's finding on the merits negativing the existence of all the grounds of eviction pleaded by the plaintiff. After reaching the above conclusion on merits, it was stated that the defence of the defendant was liable to be struck out under 13 (6) for not depositing the rent regularly as required by section 13 of the Act. Accordingly the first appellate Court proceeded to allow the plaintiff's appeal and decree the suit. Held : The learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the first appellate Court having expressly affirmed the trial Court's findings negativing the existence of all the grounds for eviction set up by the plaintiff, there could be no occasion thereafter to allow the plaintiff's appeal and decree the suit in the manner it was done by the Court below. Admittedly, the ground under clause (a) was not one of the grounds for eviction of the suit. If the first appellate Court was of the opinion that a case of striking out defence under section 13 (6) was made out, then it should have first decided that question and only thereafter proceeded to record its finding on question of existence of any of the grounds of eviction because when that decision was made, the recent full Bench decision Was not available to hold that section 13 does not apply to an appeal. In view of the first appellate Court's findings that no ground for eviction is made out, this appeal has to be allowed and the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit has to be restored. S.S. Harischandra and another v. Dr. Captain Indersingh Bedi relied on. Appeal allowed.