JUDGMENT : DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J. 1. This second appeal is preferred by appellants-Kabir Ahmed and Shabir Ahmed (LRs of original plaintiff-Mst. Chhotam Bi) but during pendency of second appeal both the appellants also died, hence the present appellants were substituted at their place. Similarly, during pendency of second appeal original tenant/defendant-Sheikh Habib, also died and his legal representatives were substituted at his place. 2. Instant second appeal is preferred at the instance of plaintiffs/landlord challenging judgment and decree dated 26.07.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge, Burhanpur, in civil appeal no.235-A/87 affirming the judgment and decree dated 05.02.1987 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class II, Burhanpur, in civil suit no.24A/86, whereby Courts below have concurrently dismissed plaintiff's suit for eviction filed on the ground of default in payment of rent available under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 3. Facts, in short are that, the original plaintiff Mst. Chhotam Bi instituted the suit on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as well as for recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant-Sheikh Habib for eviction of rented house with the allegations that the defendant is tenant on the basis of oral agreement of tenancy on monthly rent of Rs. 50/- but he never paid the rent timely and is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.09.1982, which he has not paid in spite of issuance/service of notice of demand dated 12.02.1985 (Ex.P/1). After service of notice he did not even reply the notice and neither paid arrears of rent nor vacated the house. On inter alia allegations, the suit was filed. 4. The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant it is contended that in fact the house was taken on rent @ of Rs.6/- per month, which was enhanced time to time from Rs.6/- to Rs.12/-, therefore, it is denied that the defendant is tenant on rent of Rs.50/- p.m. and is in arrears of rent. It is contended that the defendant has paid rent upto the month of January, 1985 and it was agreed between the parties that the defendant shall pay amount of house tax and the same will be adjusted in the monthly rent. It is contended that the defendant has paid rent upto the month of January, 1985 and it was agreed between the parties that the defendant shall pay amount of house tax and the same will be adjusted in the monthly rent. In the month of February 1985, the plaintiff and his nephew asked the defendant to increase monthly rent from Rs.12/- to Rs.50/-, then the defendant asked the plaintiff to adjust the amount of tax already paid by the defendant, thereupon, dispute arose and the plaintiff threatened the defendant to recover the amount in Court. It is contended that in fact the rent is due from February, 1985 till the date of suit and not from 01.09.1982. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. In support of the plaint averments, the plaintiff examined herself-Chhotam bi (PW-1) & Farukh Mohd. Khan (PW-2) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 and P/2). Similarly the defendant also examined himself-Sheikh Habib (DW-1) & Ratilal (DW-2) and also produced documentary evidence (Ex.D/1 to D/6). 6. After hearing the parties, trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.1987 dismissed the suit and upon filing appeal by the plaintiffs/appellants, the same was affirmed vide judgment and decree dated 26.07.1999. Against which, instant second appeal is preferred which came in hearing on 24.11.2000 and was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the finding arrived at by the Courts below that the defendant/respondent was not the defaulter is perverse and, therefore, is unsustainable in law?" 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that in the present case there is no dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant amongst the parties. He submits that clear cut case of the plaintiffs has been that the defendant is in arrears of rent from 01.09.1982 which he has not paid despite making several demands and lastly in spite of issuing/service of notice dated 12.02.1985 (Ex.P/1), which was also not replied for the reasons best known to the defendant. He submits that although the plaintiff made demand of rent @ Rs.50/- per month, but admittedly the defendant did not pay rent even @ Rs.12/- per month. He submits that although the plaintiff made demand of rent @ Rs.50/- per month, but admittedly the defendant did not pay rent even @ Rs.12/- per month. He also pointed out that there being dispute of rate of rent, trial Court vide order dated 12.08.1986 decided the dispute by fixing Rs.12/- per month as provisional rent, but the same was also not deposited by the defendant. He submits that in the light of order fixing provisional rent and for want of compliance of Section 13(1) of the Act, the plaintiff was entitled for decree of eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, but Courts below have without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, concurrently dismissed the suit even without making any observation that the defendant has paid the arrears of rent or not even @ Rs.12/- per month. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamnalal and others vs. Radheshyam, (2000) 4 SCC 380 as well as on a co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Agrawal Medical Agencies vs. Govind Prasad, 2012 (2) MPLJ 147 and prays for allowing the second appeal. 8. No one is appearing on behalf of the respondents/defendants though served and represented. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 10. In the present case, although the notice dtd.12.02.1985 (Ex.P/1) was issued by the plaintiff making demand of rent @ Rs.50/- per month and after requisite period of two months, the suit was also filed claiming arrears of rent @ Rs.50/- per month, but upon raising dispute of rate of rent by the defendant in the written statement, trial Court vide order dtd.12.08.1986 fixed provisional rent with the direction to the defendant to pay monthly rent @ Rs.12/- but the record available does not show that the defendant has ever made payment even @ Rs.12/- fixed by the trial Court vide interim order dated 12.08.1986. 11. While deciding issue no.1 and 2-A, trial Court has held that the defendant is not tenant on rent of Rs.50/- per month and on the date of issuance of notice the defendant was not in arrears of rent of Rs.1,450/-. 11. While deciding issue no.1 and 2-A, trial Court has held that the defendant is not tenant on rent of Rs.50/- per month and on the date of issuance of notice the defendant was not in arrears of rent of Rs.1,450/-. Issue no.2-B framed in respect of service of notice, has been answered in affirmative but, on the premise that the plaintiff has failed to prove arrears of rent of Rs.1,450/- on the date of notice trial Court decided issue no.2-C also in negative and while deciding issue no.3-A, has held that there was an agreement in between the parties about adjustment of amount of house tax paid by the defendant. By dismissing the appeal, first appellate Court also affirmed the judgment and decree of trial Court. 12. The aforesaid findings recorded by Courts below are in respect of arrears of rent claimed by the plaintiff @ Rs.50/- p.m. from the defendant on the date of issuance of notice, but here in the present case, there being dispute of rate of rent, trial Court vide order dated 12.08.1986 fixed the provisional rent @ Rs.12/- per month, which was required to be deposited necessarily by the defendant in accordance with Section 13(1) of the Act, which from the record does not appear to have been deposited by the defendant and in the judgments of Courts below also, the same thing has not been mentioned by Courts below. 13. Although the arrears were claimed @ Rs.50/- per month, but in the present case provisional rent was fixed @ Rs.12/-, therefore, the defendant was bound to deposit the rent, which was not deposited by him, as is clear from the statement (recorded in Court on 19.11.1986) made by defendant, in para 16 of his oral testimony. 14. Further, prior to issuance of notice dtd.12.02.1985 (Ex.P/1), there is no documentary evidence available on record to show that the defendant had ever paid property tax, regarding which plea of adjustment of tax in the monthly rent was taken. Just with a view to develop new case the defendant allegedly deposited house tax after notice dtd.12.02.1985 and after filing of suit on 24.04.1985. Without considering this aspect of the matter, Courts below have committed illegality in accepting the case of adjustment of house tax against payment of rent. However, the defendant has also failed to prove any such agreement of adjustment. 15. Without considering this aspect of the matter, Courts below have committed illegality in accepting the case of adjustment of house tax against payment of rent. However, the defendant has also failed to prove any such agreement of adjustment. 15. It is well settled that a tenant cannot be permitted to occupy the rented premises without payment of rent and decree of eviction can be passed even on a single default. Upon careful reading of the judgment passed by Courts below, it does not transpire that the defendant has ever deposited monthly rent in accordance with direction issued by trial Court or in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, Courts below have, without taking into consideration the aforesaid, committed illegality in dismissing the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, substantial question of law is decided against the defendants/tenants. 17. Resultantly, by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by two Courts below, the suit filed by the plaintiff stands decreed on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act along with arrears of rent @ Rs.12/- p.m. if any, with the further direction to the defendants/respondents to vacate the rented premises within a period of two months. 18. With the aforesaid, this second appeal stands allowed and disposed off. 19. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed. 20. However, no order as to the costs.