Short Note : 1. The revision had been filed by defendant No. 2, an alleged sub-tenant, against an order dated the 24th November 1975, passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Khilchipur. On an application being filed on 25-09-1975 by the plaintiff under section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 praying that an ex parte proceedings be ordered against the defendant, the trial Court, by its impugned order, presuming it to be under section 13 (6) of the Act, struck out the defence of the applicant also on the ground that he had also failed to comply with the provisions of section 13 (1) of the Act by depositing the arrears of rent and the current monthly rent. The short question involved in the revision was, whether, on these facts, the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. 2. Held : It is quite clear from the wording of section 13 of the Act that the liability to deposit rent was that of a 'tenant' as defined in section 2 (1) of the said Act. It envisaged a privity of contract between the plaintiff and the person ordered to deposit rent. If there is no privity of contract, there is no liability to pay rent. Thus, no defendant could be obliged to deposit any rent under section 13 of the said Act unless and until the plaintiff alleges the defendant to be his tenant. The liability of a sub-tenant to pay rent is only to the tenant and not to the landlord. There being no privity of contract between the landlord and the sub-tenant, no decree for rent could be passed against the sub-tenant. That being so, compelling a sub-tenant to deposit the rent is illegal. It is a different matter that a sub-tenant may be made a defendant in the suit in order that he may have his say in the matter of ejectment and he may be bound by the decree which might be passed in it. In a suit instituted by a landlord against his tenant and sub-tenant the word tenant for the purposes of section 13 (1) of the Act does not include a tenant. Thus, so far as the applicant sub-tenant, in the present case is concerned, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained. In a suit instituted by a landlord against his tenant and sub-tenant the word tenant for the purposes of section 13 (1) of the Act does not include a tenant. Thus, so far as the applicant sub-tenant, in the present case is concerned, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained. It may be that the applicant himself claims to be a tenant and alleges that he was inducted in the suit premises by the plaintiff himself, but that is not the basis of the suit as the applicant has been impleaded as a party to the suit alleging to be a sub-tenant of the original tenant, Bhagirath. In these circumstances, the order striking out the defence of the applicant against eviction must be set aside. Moolchand v. Idol Ramchandraji Maharaj. 1970 JLJ SN 94, Kanhaiyalal v. Ganeshbai, 1963 JLJ SN 265, Hazuri Singh v. Vijaya Singh, 1963 JLJ 715, relied on. Revision allowed.