JUDGMENT R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. An incorrigible defaulter-tenant is the appellant who must witness dismissal of his appeal because of his obstinate attitude. He is faced with a decree for ejectment grounded on clauses (c), (d) and (k) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter the 'Act', for short), but he has not learnt any lesson. 2. Vide order dated 5-3-90 this Court admitted the appeal for hearing parties on a singular question of law: Whether the lower appellate Court committed a jurisdictional error in striking out the defense of the defendant/appellant without resolving the dispute raised in para 4 of the written statement. 3. Admittedly the defendant/appellant is a tenant in the suit shop owned by the plaintiff/respondent. The rate of rent is Rs. 80/- per month. On 16-4-86 the suit was filed on very many grounds. The trial Court decreed the suit on the ground available under section 12 (1) (p) of the Act. An appeal was preferred. Before the appellate Court the plaintiff/respondent supported the decree on other grounds available to him. The appellate Court aside the decree under clause (p) but held that ground for ejectment under clauses (c), (d) and (k) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act were available to the plaintiff/respondent on which grounds the decree had to be maintained. 4. Before the trial Court it was alleged that the defendant/appellant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-1-1982. The plea taken in the written statement was that the arrears had been cleared upto the month of January 1986. There was thus a dispute raised within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act before the trial Court. That dispute was not resolved. The plaintiff/landlord had applied for the defense against eviction being struck off before the trial Court but that prayer was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 27-4-87. 5. Before the appellate Court, during the pendency of the appeal, the tenant did not deposit any rent. On 27-6-1988 the landlord applied for defense against eviction being struck off in term of Section 13 (6) of the Act for the default of the tenant. 5. Before the appellate Court, during the pendency of the appeal, the tenant did not deposit any rent. On 27-6-1988 the landlord applied for defense against eviction being struck off in term of Section 13 (6) of the Act for the default of the tenant. Strangely enough instead of clearing the arrears of rent, in his reply dated 30-1-89 the tenant contested the application submitting that the suit for ejectment having not been grounded on clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, the application was not maintainable. Vide para 9 of the judgment under appeal, the lower appellate Court held that the defense against eviction of the tenant was liable to be struck off on account of his having not complied with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. The lower appellate Court rightly held that the tenant's obligation to deposit the rent in arrears was attracted in all suits filed under section 12 of the Act and not only to such suits as were grounded under clause (a) alone. 6. Though there was a dispute raised in the pleadings as to the quantum of arrears, there was an issue framed on the point. Vide para 5 of its judgment, the trial Court recorded a finding that the defendant/tenant had not paid any rent since the month of January 1982 and the plea taken in the written statement that he had cleared all the arrears upto the month of January 1986 was false. The dispute thus stood resolved with the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 11-5-IV88 7. The appeal before the lower appellate Court was filed on 23-6-1988. Section 13 of the Act as had originally stood was not applicable to appeals. However, it was recast in its present form making obligatory on the tenant to deposit rent even during the pendency of the appeals. This amendment came into force w. e. f. 16-8-83 i.e. long before the filing of the appeal before the lower appellate Court. The tenant duly advised and represented by a competent lawyer should have known his obligation of clearing the arrears pending appeal. He should have been on his guard when the landlord had applied for striking out his defense inviting his attention to the continued default on his part. The tenant duly advised and represented by a competent lawyer should have known his obligation of clearing the arrears pending appeal. He should have been on his guard when the landlord had applied for striking out his defense inviting his attention to the continued default on his part. As already noticed instead of having alive to his obligation-legal and moral, the tenant chose to defend his wrongful default on wholly unsustainable grounds. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, left with default no other opinion but to strike out his defense. No fault can be found with the approach accepted by the lower appellate Court. 8. Under the dispute was resolved by the judgment of the trial Court, the tenant/appellant cannot be heard to say that the dispute had continued to survive for adjudication in the appeal also. 9. On 23-4-1989, the tenant/appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 2,880/-, which according to him, cleared all the arrears of rent till that day. That was done after the decree dated 28-3-89 of the lower appellate Court and little before filing of this appeal, failing which he would not have been shown indulgence by this Court in the matter of interim stay against execution of the decree. It is noteworthy that till this day there is no application filed by the tenant/appellant seeking concenation of delay in making the deposits. Recently, this Court has held in Gurubachan Singh v. Vimla Bai S A. No. 90/86 decided on 30-9-92, that condonation of delay in making the deposit cannot be made except on an application being moved by the tenant stating the grounds for such condonation. 10. It is also to be noted that on 3-7-90 the landlord/respondent filed an application, I. A. No. 2/90 complaining of non payment of rent again during the pendency of this appeal by the tenant and pressing for vacating the interim stay. The application was duly supported by an affidavit of the landlord. On 1-8-91, 24-8-91, and 3-10-91 the counsel for the tenant/appellant took time for filing reply and showing clearance of arrears, but no reply was filed. On 2-12-1991 this Court was compelled to clarify its order of interim stay stating that if the appellant was defaulter, then the interim stay would stand vacated. In that background it is significant to note that the tenant is persisting in his default. 11. On 2-12-1991 this Court was compelled to clarify its order of interim stay stating that if the appellant was defaulter, then the interim stay would stand vacated. In that background it is significant to note that the tenant is persisting in his default. 11. In so far as the substantial question of law, the single one indeed, on which the appeal was admitted for hearing parties, is concerned, it is clear that the dispute raised in the pleadings was resolved by the judgment of the trial Court and inspite of that the tenant having persisted in default before the lower appellate Court it cannot be said that the Court committed any error, much less a jurisdictional one, in striking out the defense of the appellant. 12 In so far as the availability of several grounds for eviction are concerned, they are all findings of the fact, not open to challenge in second appeal. This appeal was also not admitted for hearing parties on any question touching the availability of those grounds for ejectment. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is held to be without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are confirmed. The defendant/ appellant shall bear his own costs and also pay that of the plaintiff/respondent. Counsel's fee as per, schedule, if precertified. 14. Before parting it may be mentioned that the tenant/appellant deserves to be allowed a marginal relief so as to save him from sudden peril of eviction from the shop where from he is earning his livelihood. It is directed that in the event of the defendant/appellant complying with the terms stated hereinafter and filing an undertaking on affidavit before the executing Court, stating that he shall handover peaceful and vacant possession over the suit accommodation to the plaintiff/landlord on or before 31-1-1993; that he will clear the money part of the decree including the costs and all the arrears upto-date by depositing the same with the executing Court on or before 6-11-1992; that he shall continue to deposit with the executing Court the rent falling due month by month by the 15th day of that month, the execution of the ejectment part of the decree shall not be available until 31-1-1993. Failing the filing of undertaking or in the event of breach of any of the terms aforesaid, the decree for ejectment shall be available for execution forthwith 6-11-1992 or thereafter.