ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 31.3.2016 passed by 10th Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore by which application under section 13(6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 [in brief “the Act of 1961”] has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to deposit the arrears of rent within a period of two months. 2. Facts of the case are as under :- (a) The Respondents No.1 and 2, being plaintiffs, are owner of House No.581/5, M.G. Road, Banshi Trade Center, Indore. The area of ground floor Shop No.13 is 363 sq.ft. which was given on rent to the defendant on 1.5.2006 on monthly rent of Rs.4,000-00 for commercial purpose. Thereafter the rent was increased by 5% i.e. Rs.4,630-00 per month. According to the plaintiffs, the said shop is bona finely required to them to start the new business and the defendant has not paid the rent from May, 2012, therefore, they are entitled for decree of eviction under sections 12(1) (a) and 12 (1) (f) of the Act of 1961 along with the arrears of rent Rs.1,02,860-00. (b) The present petitioner being defendant filed the written statement by submitting that the entire arrears of rent has been paid by way of cash and cheques. (c) The plaintiffs filed an application under section 13(6) of the Act of 1961 that the right of defence be struck off as the defendant has not paid the rent from 1.5.2012 to October, 2015. (d) The petitioner filed the reply to the said application that he has paid the entire rent by way of cash and cheques per month regularly and there is no arrears of rent. After July, 2014 he is regularly depositing the rent in the Court. (e) The learned trial Court by order dated 31.3.2016 has held that the defendant has deposited the rent from 18.7.2014 in the Court. He has not filed any receipt in respect of payment of rent from 1.5.2012 to July, 2014. Therefore, he has been directed to pay the rent for the aforesaid period @ Rs.4,630-00 per month within a period of two months failing which the right of defence would be struck off. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 3. He has not filed any receipt in respect of payment of rent from 1.5.2012 to July, 2014. Therefore, he has been directed to pay the rent for the aforesaid period @ Rs.4,630-00 per month within a period of two months failing which the right of defence would be struck off. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 3. Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner gave two cheques dated 15.1.2013 and 16.1.2013 but due to insufficient funds, they were returned unpaid for which the plaintiffs have instituted proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Later on the petitioner has paid the aforesaid amount in cases, therefore, this High Court in case of Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9870 of 2015 by order dated 30.4.2016 has allowed the petition and quashed the Complaint No.14781/2013. The learned trial Court has not taken into consideration these two cheques while passing the impugned order. The remaining amount was paid by the petitioner by way of cash for which the plaintiffs have not issued receipts but during trial by way of evidence he would prove the payment of rent. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Shri Paresh S. Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that the learned trial Court did not committed any error of law while passing the impugned order as the defendant has failed to produce any receipt in respect of payment of rent. 5. The present petitioner are depositing the rent in the Court from 18.7.2014. As per the pleading in the plaint, he has not paid the rent from 1.5.2012 onwards. The defendant has produced only photocopies of two cheques i.e. Rs.4,630-00 dated 15.1.2013 and Rs.4,630-00 dated 16.1.2013 for the rent of months March and April, 2012 which is evident from the order of this Court dated 30.4.2016. 6. The petitioner has not produced any other document i.e. rent receipt to establish that the rent has been paid. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error of law while passing the impugned order dated 31.3.2016. The petitioner is liable to deposit the arrears of rent from 1.5.2012 to July, 2014 and the amount which has already been paid by him is liable to be adjusted. The aforesaid findings have been recorded only on the application under section 13(6) of the Act of 1961. The petitioner is liable to deposit the arrears of rent from 1.5.2012 to July, 2014 and the amount which has already been paid by him is liable to be adjusted. The aforesaid findings have been recorded only on the application under section 13(6) of the Act of 1961. The issues in respect of default in payment of rent from 1.5.2012 to July, 2014 as claimed in the plaint Rs.1,02,860-00 is liable to be proved by the plaintiffs and the defendant is liable to establish that he has paid the same by way of evidence, then only the plaintiffs would be entitled for decree under section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. The impugned order is continued till the decision on application under section 13(6) of the Act of 1961. 7. In view of the above, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.