Short Note : 1. The facts of the case in brief are that prior to the present suit the plaintiff non applicant No.1 had instituted a Civil Suit No. 59-B of 66 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I. Rajnandgaon against the defendant-applicants and the non-applicant No.2 for recovery of certain arrears of rent contending that the plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 was a tenant of one Champabhai in respect of the suit accommodation and that the plaintiff-non-applicant No 1 had further sub-let the suit accommodation to the applicants and non-applicant No.2 which was decreed on 28-11-67 against the applicants and non-applicant No.2 whereby the plaintiff-non-applicant No 1 was held to be the landlord of the suit premises and the applicants and non-applicants to be his tenants in the suit premises. The defendants-applicants preferred an Appeal against the said decree being Civil Appeal No. 9-A/69 which was dismissed on 4-10-69 by the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Rajnandgaon, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court as stated above. 2. Thereafter, the plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 instituted the present suit against the defendant-applicants and the non-applicant No.2 for ejectment based on arrears of rent under section 12 (1) (a) of the Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred• to as "the Act"). Since the defendant did not deposit the decreed arrears of rent as also arrears subsequent thereto and therefore the plaintiff-non-applicant No.1 moved an application before the trial Court under section 13(6) of the said Act to struck of the defence of the defendant-applicants. The defendant-applicants contested the said application by taking the stand that neither the plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 is landlord nor the defendant-applicants are his tenants and therefore the question of deposit of arrears of rent, as required by section 13(1) of the Act does not arise. Besides the defendant-applicants also took the plea that they have spent a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards repairs of the suit premises and that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been paid to Ramchandra Kshirsagar adjustable in the arrears of rent. The trial Court after recording evidence negatived the aforesaid contentions of the defendant-applicants arid found that the defendant-applicants have not deposited any rent, as' required by sub section (1) of section 13 of the said Act and therefore by the impunged order struck of the defence of the defendant-applicants, against which this revision has been directed. The trial Court after recording evidence negatived the aforesaid contentions of the defendant-applicants arid found that the defendant-applicants have not deposited any rent, as' required by sub section (1) of section 13 of the said Act and therefore by the impunged order struck of the defence of the defendant-applicants, against which this revision has been directed. Held : On perusal of the order-sheet of this Court, I find that several attempts were made for the service of notice upon non-applicant No 2 Goverdhan but he could not be served. The non-applicant No.2 does not seem to be interested and for the same reason he was proceeded exparte in the trial Court. He did not contest the application for striking out of the defence in the lower Court also. The order-sheet, dated 6-4-79 of this Court shows that notice to the non-applicant No. 2 was issued with the direction that the case be listed for final hearing whether or not Goverdhan is served. 3. Having heard Shri U. N. Awasthi, counsel for the applicants and Shri.S. Awasthi, counsel for the non-applicant No. 1, I am of the opinion that this revision must be dismissed. 4. On reading section 12 and 13 of the Act it clearly appears that as soon as any suit for eviction of a tenant on any of the grounds specified in section 12 of the said Act is instituted, the Court assumes jurisdiction on provisions of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act becomes operative against a tenant-defendant, irrespective of the fact whether the relationship of the landlord and tenant is admitted or not by a tenant-defendant. Had it not been so every tenant-defendant 'would have escaped the operation of section 13(1) of the Act by simply taking a plea of defence that he is not the tenant of the plaintiff and in that event the effect of the provision of section 13 (1) would have been rendered nugatory and the very objection of the legislature, would be defeated. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, in order to attract the operation of section 13 it would not be necessary at all first to decide the relationship of the parties. 5. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, in order to attract the operation of section 13 it would not be necessary at all first to decide the relationship of the parties. 5. But in the instant case there is already a decree passed in a prior suit in favour of the plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 and against the defendant-applicants that they are tenants of the plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1. Yet, they failed to deposit the arrears of rent, as required by law and made themselves liable under section 13(6) of the Act. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any in firmity or any illegality in the impunged order so as to call an interference by this Court. Revision dismissed.