JUDGMENT : Vivek Rusia, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants") against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2013 passed by 14th Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 87-A/2011 under section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961" for short). Facts of the case, in short, are as under: 2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") is the owner of House No. 1009, Khatiwala Tank, Indore comprising of one hall, two rooms, kitchen, Lat. & Bath, (hereinafter referred to as 'suit accommodation') who filed the civil suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and mesne profit against the defendants. 3. As per pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiff gave the suit accommodation' to the defendant No. 1 Late Madanlal and another on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- excluding electricity and water charges with the condition that the defendants would bear the electricity and water charges. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was not depositing the water charges in the Municipal Corporation and irregular in payment of rent to him. Despite making various demands, when they refused to pay the arrears of rent, then vide notice dated 21.6.2010 he has terminated the tenancy of the defendants w.e.f. midnight of 31.7.2010. Original defendants received the notice on 24.6.2010. After serving the aforesaid legal notice, the plaintiff filed the civil suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent w.e.f. 1.3.2003. He has calculated the arrears of rent to be recovered at Rs. 40,800/- with a mesne profit of Rs. 2,400/- in total 57,600/-. 4. After receipt of the summons, the defendants appeared before the Court on 23.2.2011, and filed the written statement denying the relationship of landlord-tenant with the plaintiff and did not deposit the rent. When the defendants did not deposit the arrears of rent, the plaintiff filed an application u/s. 13(6) of the Act of 1961. Defendants filed the reply to the said application and vide order dated 21.3.2012 of the trial Court, learned Additional District Judge has closed the right to defend. The defendants challenged the aforesaid order before this Court by way of W.P. No. 3747/2012. Defendants filed the reply to the said application and vide order dated 21.3.2012 of the trial Court, learned Additional District Judge has closed the right to defend. The defendants challenged the aforesaid order before this Court by way of W.P. No. 3747/2012. Vide order dated 1.4.2013, the writ petition was allowed by permitting the defendants to deposit the arrears of rent within a period of 30 days from the date of the order and permit them to participate in the suit proceedings. Accordingly, defendants have deposited entire rent. 5. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 Madanlal died on 4.4.2012. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 22 Rule 22 for impleadment of his wife and son as his legal representatives to contest the suit. The legal heirs of the defendant no. 1 filed reply to the application informing that the deceased had two daughters out of which one-Gayatri w/o. Shri Omprakash and she is residing at Shajapur and the second daughter-Swarnalata who is unmarried and residing in the suit accommodation. Vide order dated 9.11.2012, learned Additional District Judge has allowed the application by directing the plaintiff to implead wife, son and unmarried daughter of the deceased defendant as defendants to contest the suit. 6. After impleadment, the legal heirs of the deceased defendant filed their separate written statement on 22.4.2013. By filing the written statement defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. In a written statement they pleaded that they never paid the rent to the plaintiff as plaintiff had orally agreed to sell the suit accommodation to defendant no. 1 late Madanlal in Rs. 5,00,000/- and he paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as an advance and stopped paying the rent. Later on, the plaintiff declined to execute the sale-deed and filed the civil suit. Thereafter, learned trial Court framed additional issue No. 6 as to whether the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. 7. In support of the plaint, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and the defendants examined Rajesh Mishra as D.W. 1; Nirvikar Mule as D.W. 2. Plaintiff got exhibited legal notice dated 21.6.2010 as Ex. P/1; acknowledgement & envelope as Ex. P/2 and P/3; reply to legal notice as Ex. P/4; and Bank Statement as Ex. P/5. Defendants did not exhibit any documentary evidence. 8. Plaintiff got exhibited legal notice dated 21.6.2010 as Ex. P/1; acknowledgement & envelope as Ex. P/2 and P/3; reply to legal notice as Ex. P/4; and Bank Statement as Ex. P/5. Defendants did not exhibit any documentary evidence. 8. After appreciating the evidence came on record, learned trial Court while answering issue No. 1 has held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff's and defendants. While answering issue No. 2, learned trial Court has held that the defendants were irregular in depositing the rent and accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to receive the arrears of rent from 31.7.2010 onwards. Since the defendants came with the defence that there was an oral agreement for sale with the plaintiff, therefore, it was agreed that in the vent of non-execution of the sale-deed, Rs. 1,00,000/- would be adjusted as rent. However, the defendants have failed to prove the said agreement to sale, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was not liable to be adjusted. Hence, there is a default in payment of rent and the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree u/s. 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2013, the defendants have filed the present appeal before this Court. 9. Vide order dated 24.3.2014, while admitting the appeal for final hearing, this Court stayed the execution of the impugned judgment and decree subject to compliance of money part of the decree within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. Since the plaintiff is aged about 80 years, therefore, both the parties have agreed to argue this appeal finally through video conferencing. 10. Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the defendants, submits that the learned court below has erred in law as well as on facts while granting the decree u/s. 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. The application filed u/s. 13(6) of the Act of 1961 by the plaintiff was allowed and the defence was struck off and against the said order, the defendants had preferred W.P. No. 3747/2012 and vide order dated 1.4.2013, the said writ petition was allowed and the defendants were permitted to deposit the arrears of rent. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the defendants had deposited the entire rent, therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in granting the decree u/s. 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the defendants had deposited the entire rent, therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in granting the decree u/s. 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. He further submits that the plaintiff has settled at Khandwa and he is not interested in residing in the suit accommodation, otherwise he would have filed the suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide need. He is only interested in enhancement the rent after throwing the defendants from the suit accommodation he will again let out it on higher rent. learned counsel further submits that the appellants are ready to pay the rent as assessed by the Rent Controlling Authority. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and suit be dismissed. 11. On the other hand, Shri Satish P. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, submits that the stage and circumstances of the order passed under section 13(6) is altogether different from the stage of granting a decree u/s. 12(1) (a) of the Act of 1961 as held by the Apex Court in the case of Chimanlal Vs. Mishrilal, AIR 1985 SC 136 ; Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs. Goverdhan Bhai, AIR 2017 SC 1819 ; and this Court in the case of Jamnalal Vs. Radheshyam, 2000 (2) MPLJ 385 . He further submits that the defendants were irregular in payment of rent and despite receipt of the summons, they did not deposit the rent in the Court, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge has not committed any error of law while granting the decree under section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. This Court in W.P. No. 3747/2012 has only granted permission to the defendants to deposit the rent, but the consequential effect of non-deposit of the rent has not been decided. The defendants were permitted to participate in the proceedings, but the trial Court was still competent to decide the issues framed in regard to Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. Hence in this appeal, there is no scope of interference and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 12. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.4.2003. Vide notice dated 21.6.2010, the tenancy was terminated. Hence in this appeal, there is no scope of interference and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 12. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.4.2003. Vide notice dated 21.6.2010, the tenancy was terminated. In the suit, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that from 1.3.2003 till 30.9.2007 his claim has become time-barred, therefore, he is claiming the arrears of rent from 1.10.2007 onwards. In the written statement, the defendants denied their relationship of landlord and tenant with the plaintiff, therefore, the question of payment of rent does not arise and called upon the plaintiff to produce the rent agreement. In the written statement filed by defendants, no plea of an oral agreement to sale with the plaintiff in respect of suit accommodation had been taken. The said plea was taken in the reply to the legal notice dated 5.8.2010 (Ex. P/4). As per the said reply, monthly rent @ Rs. 1,000/- was paid up to December 2005 and thereafter, an oral agreement to sale was executed and as an advance Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid in cash to the plaintiff, therefore, tenancy agreement came to an end. It is also stated that the rent up to February 2010 has been paid. Surprisingly, no such plea has been taken in the written statement filed by the original defendant no. 1 with whom the said agreement to sell was said to have been executed. After the death of the defendant no. 1, his legal heirs were taken on record and they filed their written statement in which they took the plea of payment of the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as per oral agreement to sale. In order to prove the aforesaid, defendant No. 2 was examined as DW-2. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that no written agreement was executed and no receipt of payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as an advance was given to him because of the good relationship with them. 1,00,000/- as per oral agreement to sale. In order to prove the aforesaid, defendant No. 2 was examined as DW-2. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that no written agreement was executed and no receipt of payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as an advance was given to him because of the good relationship with them. Rajesh Mishra (D.W. 1) in his cross-examination has also admitted that he met the plaintiff 7 years ago, but he does not remember that when the rent was paid in cash and no notice was given to the plaintiff for the execution of the sale-deed, therefore, the defendants have utterly failed to prove that any agreement to sale was ever executed by the plaintiff for the house in question and Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as an advance. 13. Defendants No. 1 and 2 appeared in the suit for the first time on 30.11.2010 and sought time to file written statement, but they never deposited the rent as required under section 13(1) of the Act of 1961. They deposited the arrears of rent only when this Court permitted them to deposit in the writ petition. The arrears of rent of Rs. 78,000/- was deposited on 22.4.2013 and thereafter they started depositing the regular rent in the Court @ Rs. 1,200/- per month till the conclusion of the suit. Therefore, it is an admitted position that the rent from was not deposited by the defendants within one month from the date of receipt of summons of the suit and arrears of the rent was deposited in the Court on 22.4.2013. Hence, there was the default in payment of rent. 14. Section 13(1) of the Act of 1961 specifically provides that in a suit or any other proceedings being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12, the tenant shall within one month of the service of summons or notice of appeal or of any other proceedings, or one month of the institution of appeal or any other proceedings by the tenant, or within such further time as the Court may on an application made to it, deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord. As per Section 13(2), if there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Court shall on a plea made either by landlord or tenant in that behalf which shall be taken at the earlier opportunity during such suit or proceeding, fix a reasonable provisional rent. As per Section 13(3), if there is any dispute as to the person to whom the rent is payable, the Court may direct the tenant to deposit with the Court the amount payable by him under sub-section (1). In the present case, the original defendant in his written statement has simply denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and denied to pay the rent, then it was his duty to file an application u/s. 13(3) of the Act of 1961 or to deposit the rent in the Court. 15. Section 13(6) specifically says that if a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount as required by this Section, the Court may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. This Court in the case of Bal Chand Jain Vs. Sawai Singhai Niarmal Chand Jain, 2004 (3) MPLJ 94 has held that the default made by the tenant cannot be condoned and he is not entitled to seek protection u/s. 13(5). Similar view has been taken in the case of Shankarlal Vs. Hirabai, 2007 (2) JLJ 290 . This Court vide order dated 1.4.2013 passed in W.P. No. 3747/2012 has not condoned the delay in payment of rent, but only permitted the defendants to participate in the suit proceedings by depositing the rent. If it is treated that this Court has condoned the delay in payment of rent and permitted the defendants to contest the suit, then no ground would have survived under section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 to proceed with the suit. At that stage, the suit itself was liable to be dismissed on condonation of delay/default in payment of rent. This Court while passing the order dated 1.4.2013 had only permitted the defendants to deposit the entire rent and raise their defence in the suit. At that stage, the suit itself was liable to be dismissed on condonation of delay/default in payment of rent. This Court while passing the order dated 1.4.2013 had only permitted the defendants to deposit the entire rent and raise their defence in the suit. The defence of the defendants that they are not liable to pay the rent because there was an agreement to sale and the advance amount was liable to be adjusted towards the rent, but they failed to prove the same. Therefore, default in payment of rent has been established by the plaintiff against them and in the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has rightly passed the decree u/s. 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. 16. The apex Court in the cases of E. Palanisamy Vs. Palanisamy, (2003) 1 SCC 123 ; Mrs. Manju Choudhary Vs. Dulal Kumar Chandra, (1988) 1 SCC 363 ; and Bora Abbasbhai Alimahomed Vs. Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai, AIR 1964 SC 1341 , has held that once the non-payment of rent is established, then the Court has no option but to pass a decree on the ground contemplated u/s. 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. In the case of Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Goverdhan Bhai, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 533 the Apex court has held a under:- 10. Section 13(2) of the Act requires the tenant to pay such reasonable provisional rent as may be fixed by the court in case of a dispute or doubt about the amount that must be paid by the tenant. As stated above, the amount in this case is Rs. 150 per month. It is pointed out on behalf of the appellants that for the period from January 2001 to May 2011, when the second appeal was pending, the tenant did not deposit the monthly rent as required by Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act i.e. the rent at monthly intervals. We have perused the chart of payment of rent and we find that for the period from 9-8-2000 to 12-5-2011, the tenant paid rent on only three occasions i.e. Rs. 2,000 on 9-8-2000, Rs. 2,000 on 9-12-2000 and Rs. 500 on 12-2-2001. Thereafter, on 12-5-2011 the tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 31,250 i.e. the amount of default rent of 125 months from January 2001 to May 2011. 2,000 on 9-8-2000, Rs. 2,000 on 9-12-2000 and Rs. 500 on 12-2-2001. Thereafter, on 12-5-2011 the tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 31,250 i.e. the amount of default rent of 125 months from January 2001 to May 2011. This in our view, amounts to an implicit admission of the fact that no rent was paid on the days it was due during this period. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent tenants vehemently argued that the respondents who are the legal representatives of the original tenant were not aware of the default. It is not possible to accept this contention since they were clearly aware of the fact that they were living in tenanted premises and were bound to pay rent. In any case we find that even if the impleadment of legal representatives on 6-7-2009 there are defaults for a period of two years thereafter. 12. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the contention that the respondents had paid rent regularly. The learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the respondents are willing to pay arrears of rent now before this Court and this Court may condone such delay. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on Section 13(5) of the Act which reads as follows: "13. (5) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), no decree or order shall be made by the Court for the recovery of possession of the accommodation on the ground of default in the payment of rent by the tenant, but the Court may allow such cost as it may deem fit to the landlord." 13. We are of the view that on a plain reading, this provision protects a tenant from eviction if a tenant makes deposit/payment as required by Section 13(1) or 13(2) of the Act. In other words, if the tenant has complied with the provisions of Sections 13(1) and 13(2) in the matter of making payment, he is protected from eviction. It must be remembered that the provisions of Section 13 of the Act shied a tenant from eviction if the tenant regularly pay rent after the suit is filed. 14. Accordingly, it provides a locus poenitentiae to the tenant. It must be remembered that the provisions of Section 13 of the Act shied a tenant from eviction if the tenant regularly pay rent after the suit is filed. 14. Accordingly, it provides a locus poenitentiae to the tenant. Section 13(5) of he Act reiterates the protection by stating that if the tenant makes payment post-suit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act, he shall not be liable for eviction. This section does not confer the power on the court to condone the defaults in payment of rent after the suit is filed. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept this contention. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.