Short Note : 1. The non-applicant No. 1, landlord applied for the defence against eviction being struck out and the trial Court extended the period for payment of arrears of rent by three instalments, the first being of Rs. 500 and the rest of equal amounts, without determining the dispute as to the quantum of arrears of rent. The applicant deposited Rs. 500 on 29-4-1976, Rs. 250 on 16-7-1976, Rs. 600 on 17-6-1976, Rs. 80 on 14-8-1976 and Rs. 350 on 20-9-1976. Thereafter, the non-applicant No. 1 moved another application for striking out the defence, which was allowed by the trial Court, though entire provisional rent upto that period had been deposited. Hence this revision petition by the defendant. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant, relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported, in Chhogalal v. Bhagwan Shri Satyanarayan ( 1975 JLJ 779 ), urged that the learned trial Court has acted without jurisdiction in striking out the defence because section 13 (1) of the Act stood suspended due to the non-determination of the dispute under section 13 (2) of the act about quantum of arrears of rent. It was further urged that the learned trial Court having not fixed any period for which provisional rent was to be deposited, the provisions of section 13 (1) did not become operative and, consequently, it had no jurisdiction to order striking out the defence under sub-section (6) of section 13 of the Act. 3. It was further urged that the learned trial Court having extended the period of depositing, under section 13 (1) of the Act, the arrears of rent upto July 1976, it could not hold that the second part of section 13 (1) came into operation between February to May 1976; that as such, there was no default in complying with the provisions of section 13 (1) of the Act and consequently, the defence against eviction could not be struck out. 4. However, it was urged by Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 that according to section 13 (1) of the Act. 4. However, it was urged by Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 that according to section 13 (1) of the Act. the dispute regarding the rate of rent and quantum of rent, whether by way of an application or in the written statement, ought to have been raised within one month from the date of service of the writ of summons, as per provision of section 13 (1) of the Act, and such a dispute having not been raised within that statutory period of one month, the learned trial Court was justified in striking out the defence of the tenant-defendant against eviction. Held : However, I am unable to agree with this contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 as the Full Bench decision in Chhogalal v. Bhagwan Shri Satyanarayan ( 1975 JLJ 779 ) referred to above, though not specifically but by implication, has held that there is no time limit fixed during which that dispute has to be raised. What has to be seen is, whether, at the time of striking out the defence against eviction for noncompliance of the provision of section 13 (1) of the Act, there is any dispute existing regarding the rate or quantum of rent. 5. Thus, it would appear that the operation of second part of section 13 (1) of the Act, would not come into play unless and until the period given under the first part for depositing the rent as contemplated by it was over and, consequently, in present case, the learned trial Court could not strike out the defence of the applicant, in these circumstances, and has clearly committed an error in exercise of its jurisdiction in striking out the defence of the applicant against eviction. 6. In the result, this revision is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court striking out the defence against eviction of the applicant is set aside and it is ordered that the reasonable provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 40 per month from 16-12-1972 till 28-2-1977 shall be deposited by the applicant-defendant tenant upto 31st March, 1977 in compliance with the first part of section 13 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, the defendant shall continue to deposit reasonable provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 40 per month from 16-12-1972 till 28-2-1977 shall be deposited by the applicant-defendant tenant upto 31st March, 1977 in compliance with the first part of section 13 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, the defendant shall continue to deposit reasonable provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 40 per month for each month by the fifteenth of the succeeding month in accordance with second part of section 13 (1) of the Act till final decision of the suit. 1975 JLJ 779 (FB) relied on. Revision allowed.