Security deposits are not automatically adjustable against rent arrears absent statutory mandate or express agreement.

The appellant (tenant) challenged an eviction decree passed under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act on the ground of arrears of rent for Shop Nos. 3 and 4 in Gwalior

The landlord alleged arrears from December 15, 1985, to April 14, 1987

The tenant contended he had paid Rs. 4,900 without receiving a receipt and argued that an earnest money deposit of Rs. 10,000 held by the landlord should be adjusted against any arrears

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court (XIIth Additional District Judge, Gwalior) found the tenant in default and decreed eviction

During the pendency of the second appeal, the tenant admitted to multiple subsequent defaults in depositing monthly rent as required by law

Whether the lower courts erred in passing a decree for ejectment under Section 12(1)(a) when an amount of Rs. 10,000 was deposited with the landlord, which was intended to be refunded upon vacating the premises

The court primarily applied Section 12(1)(a) regarding eviction for rent arrears and Section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, which mandates the timely deposit of rent during litigation

It relied on Section 6 of the Act to distinguish between unlawful charges and adjustable advances

The court applied the precedent of Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta v. Rameshwar Agarwala, which established that excess rent or deposits do not automatically adjust against arrears absent a specific agreement or statutory provision

Furthermore, it followed Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Goverdhan Bhai, ruling that courts lack the power to condone defaults in monthly rent deposits (by the 15th of each month) occurring after a suit is filed

The court found that Section 6 of the M.P. Act, unlike similar statutes in other states, contains no provision for the automatic adjustment of a security deposit or "pugree" against rent arrears

The tenancy agreement (Ex. P.1) specifically stated the Rs. 10,000 was refundable only upon vacating the premises, with no clause for adjustment against rent

Under Section 92 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence could not contradict these written terms

The tenant neither sought adjustment in his reply to the notice nor in his written statement, instead claiming he had already paid the arrears

Crucially, the court noted that the tenant failed to comply with the mandatory "second part" of Section 13(1) of the Act, which requires depositing rent by the 15th of every succeeding month during the pendency of the appeal

The court held that this statutory obligation applies regardless of whether the initial eviction ground was arrears of rent, and such post-suit defaults cannot be condoned

The court affirmed the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, dismissing the Second Appeal

The appellant was directed to vacate the shops, and the Executing Court was ordered to conclude proceedings within six months, following the timeline established in Periyammal (D) v. V. Rajamani