ORDER 1. Respondents were the plaintiffs as the suit filed for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits alleging that the defendant was the tenant in the suit accommodation at the rate of Rs. 262.50 per month suit was filed by them against the defendant-appellant on the ground of section 12 (1) (a) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. Although the rent amount, which was to be paid by the defendant was in a large sum, but only the rent which was not time-barred was claimed by the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. 3. The defendant-appellant preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. The defendant thereafter preferred the appeal against the judgment and decree of the appellate Court in this Court and the operation of the judgment and decree was stayed on the condition that the defendant-appellant shall deposit 50 per cent of the decretal sum within one month and shall continue to deposit the current mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 262.50 per month before 15th of every month. Since the conditions were not complied with by the defendant appellant, in the execution of the decree, the possession of the disputed house was taken by the plaintiffs-respondents. 4. Shri K.K. Lahoti, appearing for the appellant, has very forcibly contended that the learned Courts below erred in law in passing the impugned judgment and decree and in not staying the suit, as the defendant's application for the fixation of standard rent riled under section 10 of the Act was pending before the Rent Controlling Authority (RCA). It is submitted that the defendant had filed an application for the stay of the suit but the same was dismissed. In support of his contention, Shri Lahoti, has placed implicit reliance on the authority of this Court in Kanchedi Lal v. Kasturi Bai [1976 (Vol. 1) MPWN 158] and P. V. Shetty v. B.S. Girdhar ( AIR 1982 SC 83 ). 5. I have considered the contentions advanced. The authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not help the appellant as it was passed on the consideration of Karnataka Rent Control Act, which had the different provisions. It appears that under that Act, the protection of the Rent Act was not available to a tenant where the rent was more than 500/- per month. The authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not help the appellant as it was passed on the consideration of Karnataka Rent Control Act, which had the different provisions. It appears that under that Act, the protection of the Rent Act was not available to a tenant where the rent was more than 500/- per month. In Kanchedi Lal's case (supra), the only point for determination in the suit was about the rent and this Court had observed that though the provisions of section 10 of Act were not applicable in terms to the case, the Court in its discretion in the facts of that case ought to have stayed the proceedings of the suit. 6. When the decision on a point is left on the discretion of a Court, the Court is required to evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case in order to find out whether the benefit of discretion could be granted to a party. The exercise of a discretion is an equitable power and the facts of each case would govern the grant of relief. 7. In the present case, there was earlier a litigation between the parties. The possession of the disputed accommodation was handed over to the defendant before the Civil Court and the rate of rent was decided to be of rupees 260/- per month under Annexure P/3. The parties had agreed in the Court and defendant Bashiran Bai had paid one month's advance rent to the landlord in an amount of Rs. 262.50. The amount of rent was, therefore, an agreed rent between the parties before the Court. However, if the defendant had preferred an application under section 10 of the Act for the fixation of the standard rent, still in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant was under the liability to deposit in Court the amount of agreed rent. Further, when the appellant-defendant had raised the dispute about the rate of rent, in the trial Court, the order was passed by the Court deciding the dispute fixing the provisional rent @ Rs. 262.50. 8. In the above peculiar facts of the case, the learned Court below committed no illegality in not staying the proceedings. However, this Court in Anmir Mallik v. Ashok Pillai (1983 MPWN 97) observed that "so long the standard rent was not fixed, the tenant was bound to pay the contractual rent. 262.50. 8. In the above peculiar facts of the case, the learned Court below committed no illegality in not staying the proceedings. However, this Court in Anmir Mallik v. Ashok Pillai (1983 MPWN 97) observed that "so long the standard rent was not fixed, the tenant was bound to pay the contractual rent. Upon fixation of the standard rent, the order of R.C.A. would operate from such date as he may specify and any payment made in excess should be refunded or adjusted towards future rent. " 9. The appellant-defendant is no more in possession of the disputed accommodation. However, if the R.C.A. fixes the standard rent, which may be less than the paid rent, which was agreed by the parties before the Court in the earlier litigations, the over payment shall be recoverable by the appellant from the landlord. 10. The findings of the two Courts below are the findings of fact and do not call for any interference in second appeal. No law point is involved. 11. In view of the above, I have found no substance in this appeal and it is dismissed.