Short Note : 1. This is a revision directed against order, dated 8-5-1978 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Shivpuri whereby application of the defendant under sections 13 (2) and 13 (3) of the Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been rejected. Held : It is argued by Shri D.K. Katare that the previous order dated 18-2-1978 happened to be passed while deciding application under section 13 (6) of the Act. This contention is ex-facie, attractive but has no force. In substance, previous order was to direct the defendant-applicants to deposit rent for the period of three years as claimed by plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 150. This order cannot be deemed to have been passed under section 13 (6) of the Act. Accordingly, it falls squarely within the ambit of section 13 (2) of the Act. It appears that the defendant at that stage did not elect to press his plea regarding absence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Now he cannot be permitted to turn round and press that objection. It will be deemed to have been decided by implication and the doctrine of ‘constructive resjudicata’ against applicants in the matter will operate. Even otherwise none of the pleas advanced by the learned counsel have force on merits also. 2. As to the plea regarding absence of relationship of landlord and tenant, suffice it to say that in case to mortgage and lease back the relationship of landlord and tenant can be created as held by this Court in a case reported in 1963 JLJ 174 Trustees of Motidas Beragi Sadhu Ratlam Trust Board and others v. Ramjatan Ramprasad Sonar and others. 3. In this view of the matter, the principles laid down by this Court in 1974 JLJ 434 (Nathulal Gupta v. Phattandas and another) have no application to the present situation. The facts of the case before Tankha, J. are distinguishable. The ratio of the case reported in 1967 JLJ 31 (Inderlal v. Mahugibai and others) also applies to the present situation. 4. This brings me to the last contention advanced by the learned counsel pertaining to the applicability of section 13 (2) of the Act. The facts of the case before Tankha, J. are distinguishable. The ratio of the case reported in 1967 JLJ 31 (Inderlal v. Mahugibai and others) also applies to the present situation. 4. This brings me to the last contention advanced by the learned counsel pertaining to the applicability of section 13 (2) of the Act. In essence the plea of the defendant applicants is that they are not tenants and even if they are regarded to be tenants then the Court must first determine the standard rent payable in accordance with the provisional rent, of the Act and then order that rent to be deposited by way of provisional rent, under section (13) (2) of the Act. This contention too has no force. It is not the postulate of law that for purposes of section 13 (2) standard rent should be first determined. As such this plea cannot be construed to raise a dispute of the nature within the contemplation of section 13 (2) of the Act. The words any dispute occurring in the aforesaid sub-section’ are qualified by the words “as to any amount of rent payable by the tenant.” As such the plea advanced by the defendant-applicants on the point does not raise dispute falling within the ambit of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. 1974 JLJ 434 distinguished. 1963 JLJ 174 and 1967 JLJ 31 relied on Revision dismissed.