ORDER 1. This second appeal under section 100 of CPC is at the instance of defendant/tenant challenging the concurrent decree of eviction passed by the two Courts below. Trial Court by judgment dated 22.6.2013 had decreed the suit for eviction and first appellate Court by judgment dated 3.1.2017 by dismissing the appeal has affirmed the judgment of trial Court. 2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for eviction pleading that the suit premises was given on rent to the appellant for the purpose of grain shop for 11 months but the appellant has closed the shop and is working as Advocate/Notary, therefore, the suit shop is not required by him. It was further pleaded that the suit premises is required by respondent/Samaj since their existing building is inadequate therefore, they want to demolish the construction and raise a new building for the Samaj. The notice of eviction was given to the appellant, thereafter the suit was filed. 3. The suit was opposed by the appellant by filing written statement and denying the need of respondents and also denying the ground for eviction raised therein. 4. Trial Court had decreed the suit on the ground of arrears of rent under section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the availability of alternate accommodation with appellant under section 12(1)(i) of the Act and non-user of premises in question under section 12(1)(d) of the Act. The first appellate Court has reversed the finding of trial Court in respect of ground under section 12(1)(i) and has affirmed the judgment of trial Court in respect of ground of eviction under sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(d) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Courts below have committed an error in passing the decree on the ground of arrears of rent and that the appellant is still using the suit premises therefore, the decree of eviction under section 12(1)(d) of the Act cannot be sustained. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant and on perusal of the record it is noticed that both the Courts below have elaborately examined the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. 7. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant and on perusal of the record it is noticed that both the Courts below have elaborately examined the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. 7. So far as the ground of eviction under section 12(1)(a) in respect of default in payment of rent is concerned, it has been found by the Courts below that the suit was filed on 24.11.2009 and the first receipt of payment of rent filed by appellant is of 14.10.2010 by which the rent from March 2007 to December 2010 was deposited. Hence there was a clear default in complying with the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act. It has further been noted that the appellant thereafter had preferred the revision and by order dated 11.10.2010 he was directed to deposit the balance rent within 15 days and then the rent was deposited on 14.10.2010. In terms of section 13(1) of the Act the appellant was required to deposit the rent by 15th of each month but thereafter the rent for the month of June 2011 was not deposited by 15th of June 2011 but it was deposited on 20th June 2011. Hence again the default was committed. 8. In view of these findings the Courts below have rightly passed the decree under section 12(1)(a) of the Act. 9. So far as the issue of non-user of premises is concerned, both the Courts below have concurrently found that appellant could not produce any material to show that he was using the suit premises or there existing any justifiable reason for stopping the use of the suit premises. On the contrary the Courts below have noted the admission of appellant’s witness Mahendra Sharma relating to non-user of suit premises by the appellant. The finding in this regard is pure finding of fact. Hence the decree of eviction has rightly been passed under section 12(1)(a) of the Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and the issue which the appellant is raising is concluded by the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for appellant has prayed for time to vacate the suit premises. 12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for appellant has prayed for time to vacate the suit premises. 12. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, the appellant is granted time upto 31st December, 2017, to vacate the suit premises on the following conditions :- (1) The appellant will furnish an undertaking before the trial Court within 4 weeks from today stating that he will hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondents on or before 31st December, 2017. (2) The appellant will comply with the money part of the decree within 6 weeks from today. (3) The appellant will continue to deposit the rent of the suit premises on or before 15th of each month. (4) The appellant will not create any third party right on the suit premises in the meanwhile.