Short Note : The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant petitioner, based on section 12(1)(a) and (g) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The plaintiff respondent in his suit claimed arrears of rent from 01-10-1973 which were disputed by the defendant petitioner in his written statement. On 16-11-1976, the defendant petitioner filed an application under section 13(2) of the Act, stating that he had paid rent upto September 1975 and thereafter the plaintiff refused to accept the rent. Though the defendant had raised the dispute as stated above, yet he made an initial deposit of Rs. 480 on 15-1-1977 towards the rent from October 1975 to January 1977. The learned trial Judge by its order dated 29-9-1978, decided the said application of the defendant under section 13(2) of the Act, holding that the defendant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1-10-1973 to 31st August 1978 amounting to Rs. 1,770 and therefore directed the defendant to pay the total amount of Rs. 1,770. The defendant could not deposit the rent for the period from 1-10-1973 to September 1975 within one month as directed by the Court. The learned trial Court by the impugned order not only rejected the application of the defendant for condonation of delay but also passed an order striking out his defence. Held : It is an admitted fact that the defendant had raised a dispute contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act and once a dispute under section 13(2) is raised, it becomes incumbent upon the Court to determine the dispute forthwith, if in its opinion there is sufficient material in this behalf. When the dispute with regard to the arrears of rent is raised under section 13(2) of the Act, the operation of the whole of the subsection (1) of section 13 of the Act is arrested. And thus it is not obligatory on the part of the defendant tenant to deposit monthly rent for the preceding month under the second part of section 13(1) also, and such liability of the defendant to deposit rent does not commence, until any order under section 13(2) of section 13 is passed by the Court. Anandilal v. Shivdayal, 1977 JLJ 817 relied on. 2. Anandilal v. Shivdayal, 1977 JLJ 817 relied on. 2. It is also an admitted fact that the defendant had deposited all the arrears of rent due against him on 8-11-1978, yet the learned trial Court by its impugned order passed after the said deposit struck off the defence of the defendant which could not be said to be justified in any event. The learned trial Court has not applied its mind to the provisions of section 13(6) of the Act. In order to avoid penalty under section 13(6) of the Act, it is not necessary for the defendant tenant to have deposited the rent as required by section 13(1) of the Act, and failure to do so will not incur the penal clause of section 13 of the Act, if he had made a substantial compliance of section 13 of the Act. It was not proper for the Court to strike out the defence simply because there was default in payment of the rent sometimes in the past which according to him could not be considered for purposes of section 13(6) of the Act. The Court has discretion in the matter of exercise of its lowers under section 13(6) which are to be exercised very sparingly and only in extreme cases where the Court finds that the default was wilful and the tenant is guilty of positive mala fides. But in the instant case, it could not be said that the default on the part of the defendant was either wilful or malafide, because the defendant had already deposited all the arrears before the passing of the impugned order. Revision allowed.