Short Note : 1. In defence the defendants have submitted that they are not the tenants of the plaintiff, that in fact, this transaction was a mortgage and the rent note executed is for the payment of interest that formerly Rs. 60/- per month was the rent, but on this blank rent note, without the knowledge of the defendants, subsequently the plaintiff has filed in Rs. 125/- as the rent. Held : In this revision the defendants have submitted before me that as the tenancy is denied, therefore, Section 13 (1) of the Act is not applicable to the case. I do not agree with this submission Section 13 of the Act begins with the wording, "On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in section 12, ..... .... ....". This will show that as soon as the suit for eviction is filed by a landlord on any of the grounds referred to in section 12 of the Act, section 13 thereof will be applicable. In defence whether the tenancy is admissible or not, will not stop the attraction of section 13 of the Act to a case of eviction filed by a landlord. 2. The second submission made before me was that formerly the rent was Rs. 60/- and the receipt (Ex. D/1) is given and admitted by the plaintiff. He has not explained as to how this rent of Rs. 60/- was increased to Rs. 125/- and the trial Court has also not explained this aspect of the case. To this the learned counsel for the plaintiff Shri N. K Sharma, submits that once there is a rent note which is admitted by the defendants for fixing the provisional amount the amount mentioned in the rent note is sufficient to decide the matter. He has referred to me the judgment of this Court in Chapsibai v. Mahendra Kumar (1963 JLJ SN 240). Applying this dictum laid down in the above case. I am of the view that when once there is a rent note showing the rent of Rs. 125/- per month, the provisional rent fixed by the trial Court is correct. The dates regarding the rent note and the receipt are material to the case. The receipt is dated 15-12-1968 while the rent note is dated 14-5-1971. The rent note is subsequent to the receipt. 125/- per month, the provisional rent fixed by the trial Court is correct. The dates regarding the rent note and the receipt are material to the case. The receipt is dated 15-12-1968 while the rent note is dated 14-5-1971. The rent note is subsequent to the receipt. Therefore, the trial Court's acceptance of the rent note for fixing the provisional rent cannot be said to be perverse. 1963 JLJ SN 240 relied on. Revision dismissed.