Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-non applicant filed the present suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the applicant-defendant. The rate of rent claimed by him is Rs.40/- per month. During the pendency of the suit as arrears of rent were not deposited by the tenant, the plaintiff moved an application under section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for striking out the defence of the applicant. The trial Court, by its order dated 17-9-75, allowed the application and struck off the defence of the applicant against eviction. The applicant preferred a revision against the order of the lower Court to this Court being Civil Revision No. 566 of 1975. This revision was allowed by this Court on 18-12-1975. This Court set aside the order of the trial Court and directed it to decide the dispute about the monthly rate of rent and all arrears of rent required to be deposited be the defendant in accordance with the provisions of section 13(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Thereafter the trial Court, after hearing the parties. by its order dated 7-5-76, fixed the provisional rate of rent at Rs. 45/- per month and directed the applicant-defendant to deposit the same for the period for which it was claimed by the plaintiff-non-applicant in the suit. The Court also observed that a part of the claim of arrears of rent was barred by time but no decision was pointed out that such time barred rent can not be recovered. It may be stated that only five months rent was barred by limitation. The Court also observed that since there was a dispute about the rate and amount of rent the rent so deposited by the tenant shall not be paid to the plaintiff until final disposal of the suit. The Court directed the tenant to deposit the rent as ordered by the Court within one month from the date of the order. Inspite of this order the tenant did not deposit any rent in the Court. Held. Shri Meghalan. learned counsel for the applicant contended that a dispute was raised by the applicant that a sum of Rs. 3000/- and odd had been deposited by her in the earlier suit Which was not taken into account and that the plaintiff cannot recover the time barred rent. Held. Shri Meghalan. learned counsel for the applicant contended that a dispute was raised by the applicant that a sum of Rs. 3000/- and odd had been deposited by her in the earlier suit Which was not taken into account and that the plaintiff cannot recover the time barred rent. Shri Meghalan admitted that no rent has been deposited by the tenant in the present suit either before Or after the order passed by the Court on 7-5-76. The Court while passing the said order considered the objections of the tenant and after rejecting the same directed the defendant to deposit the rent as ordered by the Court. That order of the Court has become final. It is common ground that the defendant has not complied with the said order of the Court. In the circumstances the trial Court was justified in striking out the defence of the applicant-defendant against eviction and it has not been shown that any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Court by law has been committed. Revision dismissed.