Short Note : 1. According to the defendant, the sale-deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiff was a nominal one for the collateral purpose of securing repayment of the loan and as such was never intended to be acted upon as real sale so as to create the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. Under these circumstance, according to the defendant, no rent was payable to the plaintiff-landlord or to anybody else. It was not disputed that the defendant did not deposit the amount equal to the amount of rent in compliance with the provisions of section 13 (1) of the Act. He simply raised the aforesaid dispute and contended that since it was a nominal transaction for securing repayment of loan, various payments made by him to the plaintiff were towards the satisfaction of the loan and not towards rent. The trial Court, under these circumstances, made the order impugned and the defence available according to the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act was struck off. 2. In my opinion, the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff cannot be accepted. In the present case, there was no dispute as to persons to whom the rent was payable. The plea of the defendant, that the plaintiff was not the landlord as the sale-deed executed by him in his favour was a nominal one and that he was occupying the house in his own right as owner and not as tenant of anybody, does not amount to raising a dispute, as contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act. 3. Even after the defence having been struck off, under sub-section (6) of section 13 of the Act, the defendant is fully entitled to contest the suit on his case as put up by him. If he ultimately succeeds on the same, there may be no occasion for evicting him irrespective of the fact that the defence under the provisions of M. P. Accommodation Control Act was not available to him. 4. If a suit is brought by the plaintiff showing the defendant as a tenant and eviction is sought on any of the grounds specified in section 12 of the Act, the provisions of section 13 (1) are attracted. They do not depend on the ultimate decision by the Court of the issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant. 4. If a suit is brought by the plaintiff showing the defendant as a tenant and eviction is sought on any of the grounds specified in section 12 of the Act, the provisions of section 13 (1) are attracted. They do not depend on the ultimate decision by the Court of the issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary that the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be first determined before making an order under sub-section (6) of section 13 of the Act. 1967 JLJ 31 and 1973 JLJ 426 , relied on, Revision dismissed.