Short Note : 1. The plaintiffs, who were tenants, filed the suit against their sub-tendant-defendants, for ejectment on the ground of section 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act The plaintiff’s filed an application under section 13 (6) of the Accommodation Control Act for stiking out the defence of the defendants against eviction. The trial Court dismissed the application. Held : Looking to the pleadings of the parties, and the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly, there is a dispute between the parties regarding the quantum and rate of rent as also regarding the person to whom it is payable by the defendants and accordingly, issues have also been framed. This dispute is yet to be decided on merits. That apart, admittedly, the plaintiffs themselves are not the owners of the suit accommodation. The provisions of striking out the defence are not mandatory but are discretionary and such powers are ordinarily to be exercised in cases where there is a clear cut default in absence of any dispute regarding rent. The right of defence is a valuable right and, in the present case, when apparently a dispute regarding rent has been raised by the defendant, in the opinion of this Court, the discretion exercised by the trial court which admittedly, had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, cannot be said to be perverse. Merely because, the impugned order is erroneous or wrong or is not in accordance with law, is by itself no ground for interference in revision under section 115 CPC, unless the lower Court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Such is not the case here. The impugned order cannot also be said to have caused any prejudice to the plaintiff or has resulted any failure of justice. Consequently, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court.