Short Note : 1. By this second appeal, the appellant defendant seeks interference with the judgment and decree made by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court directing eviction of the defendant tenant from the suit premises by holding that the plaintiff landlord was successful in establishing the grounds under section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 2. Shri Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that since the defendant tenant had deposited the entire amount of arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff, he earned the immunity against eviction on the ground under section 12(1)(a) of the Act at least even if there were defaults in subsequent monthly deposit. This contention cannot be accepted because even otherwise in the present case, the claim for eviction was made on the ground of section 12(1)(c) also, in addition to section 12(1)(a) of the Act. It was not a case that immediately after deposit or the entire amount of arrears of tent within one month from the date of service of summons of the suit, nothing was left to be tried and determined by the Court. The Court was required to investigate the validity of the ground under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Under these circumstances, the defendant was liable to deposit rent in strict compliance of provisions of section 13(1) of the Act during the entire period of pendency of the suit. This contention, therefore, cannot be accepted. 3. Since ground under section 12(1)(a) of the Act is fully borne out and the finding arrived by the Courts below is being affirmed by this Court, it is not necessary to deal with the ground under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Appeal dismissed.