ORDER A. P. Sen, J. l. This revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 31st July 1967, passed by the II Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur. 2. The short question involved in this revision is whether the learned Judge acted illegally or with material irregularity in ma king a direction in terms of section 13 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in a suit between landlord and tenant. 3. The plaintiffs claimed the ejectment of the defendant on the ground mentioned under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act, for alleged failure on his part to comply with a notice of demand for payment of the arrears of rent due. According to them, the defendant was in arrears with the rent amounting to Rs.2,720/-. Thereupon, the defendant filed an application under section 12 (2) and (3), by raising a dispute as regards the amount of rent payable as well as a dispute as to whom it is payable. 4. The learned Judge was of the view that unless there was unconditional payment of the arrears claimed within 15 days of the date of order, the defence will be liable to be struck off. Hence this revision. 5, Shri P. R. Padhye, learned counsel for the applicant confined his submission to section 13 (2) and according to him, under that provision the Court has to decide a dispute both in respect of the arrears payable and the rate of rent which is to be paid or deposited. In other words, the dispute referred to in section (2) includes a dispute as to the amount of arrears. In support of his submission, the learned counsel places reliance upon there [unreported] decisions of Sharma, J. in Ramnivas Vs. Kishanlal 1964 JLJ SN 26. Labhchand Vs. Ramswarup 1964 JLJ SN 96. and Ramnarain Vs. Gourishankar 1964 JLJ SN 172. He also invites my attention to Premdas Vs. Laxmi Narayan Ponde 1964 JLJ 87 -ILR 1965 MP 669. and Surajprasad Vs. Ganpatrai 1968 JLJ 367 . 6. The contention cannot be accepted. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Punjamal Vs. Labhchand Vs. Ramswarup 1964 JLJ SN 96. and Ramnarain Vs. Gourishankar 1964 JLJ SN 172. He also invites my attention to Premdas Vs. Laxmi Narayan Ponde 1964 JLJ 87 -ILR 1965 MP 669. and Surajprasad Vs. Ganpatrai 1968 JLJ 367 . 6. The contention cannot be accepted. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Punjamal Vs. Bhagwatiprasad AIR 1963 SC 120 , while interpreting similar provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Rates (Control) Act, 1947, the provisions of this section operate against the landlord and its provisions should be strictly interpreted and their scope must not be extended beyond the limit warranted by the language used therein. 7. Shri S.N. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants, rightly contends that the language of section 13 (1), particularly the opening words "on a suit or proceeding being instituted" are clear and explicit, and it is not the plea of the defendant that determines whether he is or is not liable to make any deposit under the provision but the averments in the plaint. In Inderlal Balkiran Vs. Mahagin Bai 1967 JLJ 31 = 1987 MPLJ 125= AIR 1967 MP 163 , Dixit, C.J. and Bhave, J, have said that the liability of the defendant to make deposit under that provision arises the moment a suit for eviction is filed against him by the landlord. It follows, as a necessary corollary, that the defendant must payor deposit the arrears claimed within the time allowed provided there is no dispute as regards the rate at which the rent is to be paid. The [unreported] decisions of Sharma, J. have been noticed with disapproval in lnderlal Balkiran Vs. Mahagin Bai (supra). and have been overruled on another point. The decision of Dixit C. J., in Suraj Prasad Vs. Ganpatrai (supra), is distinguishable on its own facts. 8. Having regard to the context in which they appear, the words "as to the amount of rent payable", appearing in section 13 (2) must be interpreted as meaning "as to the rate of rent payable". On the plain language of this section, the court is required to decide a dispute as to the rate of rent at which it is to be paid and not a dispute as to the amount of arrears payable. On the plain language of this section, the court is required to decide a dispute as to the rate of rent at which it is to be paid and not a dispute as to the amount of arrears payable. This is made clear by the latter part of section 13 (2) which contemplates fixation of a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the premises till the decision of the suit or appeal. Any other construction would lead to a patent absurdity. When a suit is filed on the ground mentioned under section 12 (l) (a) there can never be a direction under section 13 (6) or striking out the defence without a virtual trial of the main issue in the suit, namely, whether the tenant is or is not in arrears with the rent, and if so, to what extent, because the defendant can always avoid this consequence by pleading that he is not in arrears or that arrears are not to the extent claimed. 9. The result is that the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 50/-, if certified.