JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE order in this revision shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision No. 301 of 1972. Both these revisions arise out of an order passed by the trial Court refusing to try the question of title of the plaintiffs-landlords to the suit accommodation as a preliminary issue. The landlords in both the suits are plaintiffs ; and the defendants (tenant and sub-tenant) of the suit accommodation are the same. ( 2. ) THE learned counsel for the applicants contends that the issue whether the plaintiffs were the landlords of the suit accommodation and as such entitled to withdraw the amount of rent that may be deposited ought to have been tried as a preliminary issue. The learned counsel for the non-applicants, on the other hand, contends that the issue regarding the title to the suit accommodation could not be tried as a preliminary issue and that the trial Court was right in rejecting the prayer for so doing. ( 3. ) FOR the purpose of appreciating the contentions aforesaid, the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are reproduced here: " (3) If, in any proceeding referred to in sub-section (1), there is any dispute as to the person or persons 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) or sub-section (2), and in such a case, no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit until the Court decides the dispute and makes an order for payment of the same. (4) If the Court is satisfied that any dispute referred to in sub-section (3) has been raised by a tenant for reasons which are false or frivolous the Court may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the suit. " In view of these provisions, I am of opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants must prevail. ( 4. " In view of these provisions, I am of opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants must prevail. ( 4. ) UNDER section 13 (3) of the Act, no doubt, power is given to the trial court to direct the tenant to deposit the rent with the Court that may be payable by him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 13 but the amount so deposited shall not be payable to the landlord unless the dispute with regard to the ownership of the accommodation is decided by the Court. The question then arises what is the stage when the Court should decide the dispute with regard to the ownership. The dispute may be decided as a preliminary issue or it can be decided while finally deciding the suit. For this purpose one has to look to the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 13 of the act which clearly lays down that in case the Court is satisfied that any dispute referred to in sub-section (3) has been raised by a tenant for reasons which are false or frivolous, it may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the case. In view of this provision, if the dispute is not decided at an early stage and ultimately it is found by the Court that the dispute as to the right of the landlord was raised for reasons which are false and frivolous, the time of the Court and the money of the litigants spent on the trial of the suit would be wasted. The expression may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the suit in sub-section (4) indicate that such a dispute ought to be decided at an early stage and not when the suit is finally decided. Hearing of a suit means recording of the evidence and hearing of arguments and since the Court is required to proceed with the suit after striking out the defence against eviction in case it is found that the dispute as to title was raised by the tenant for reasons which were false or frivolous, the only interpretation of the sub-section that is possible is that after the Court has decided the dispute as to the title to the accommodation, it should proceed further with the suit. If it finds that the dispute raised by the tenant was for reasons which were false or frivolous then the defence against eviction has to be struck out. So, if the question of right is not decided at an early stage and is decided with the other issues in the case while finally deciding the suit, the provisions of the sub-section so far as they relate to striking out of the defence against eviction and then proceeding further with the hearing of the case would be meaningless. The effect of striking out the defence against eviction is that the suit, thereafter, proceeds ex parte so far as it relates to the grounds contained in section 12 (1) of the Act and the written statement so far as it relates to plaint averments regarding the said grounds is overlooked. The defendant-tenant is also precluded from cross-examining the plaintiff-landlord on the points as also from producing any evidence in that respect; and the plaintiffs burden to establish at least the alleged ground or ground under section 12 (1) of the Act becomes light. All this goes to show that when a dispute is raised with regard to the ownership of the suit accommodation in such cases, it is better that such dispute should be decided as a preliminary issue rather than postponing its decision with the other issues at the time of final decision of the suit. ( 5. ) I may mention here that the decision of the question of title would also go to the root of the case. ( 6. ) IN this view of the matter, I am of opinion that the trial Court was in error in exercise of its jurisdiction in not deciding the issue as to the ownership as a preliminary issue. ( 7. ) THE revision is, therefore, partly allowed. The order of the trial court, in so far as it refuses to try the issue of land lordship of the suit accommodation as a preliminary issue, is set aside and it is directed that it shall try and decide the said issue as a preliminary issue and then proceed with the suit in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of this revision. Revision partly allowed.