Judgment This is a revision by the tenant. By the impugned order, the Court below has struck his defence against eviction under section 13 [4] of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (for short, hereinafter called 'the Act'). One Rajaram, the father of the non-applicant was admittedly, the landlord of the applicant in respect of the suit accommodation. The said Rajaram informed the applicant vide his notice dated 25-7-1973 (Ext. P-3) that in the registered family partition dated 17-7-1973, the suit accommodation was allotted to the share of the non-applicant and, therefore, he had become entitled to the rent of the suit accommodation from the month of July 1973. By him reply notice (Ext D-1) dated 31-7-1973 the applicant denied to accept the partition or to treat the non-applicant as his landlord. The demand notice for arrears of rent (Ext P-4) sent on behalf of the non-applicant was refuted by the applicant on the ground that he was not his landlord. Thereafter, the non-applicant brought the present suit for ejectment of the applicant from the suit accommodation, inter alia, on the ground under clause (a) and clause (c) of sub-section (1) of S. 12 of the Act. The applicant denied that the non-applicant was his landlord and also raised a dispute under section 13 (3) of the Act as to the person or persons to whom the rent was payable. This dispute was decided in favour of the non-applicant. Thereafter, on an application made by the non-applicant, the Court below was pleased to strike out the defence of the applicant against eviction under section 13 (4) of the Act. Section 13 (4) of the Act says : "If the Court is satisfied that the dispute referred to in sub-section (3) has been raised by a tenant for reasons which are false or frivolous, the Court may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the suit". The applicant was given intimation in writing by ex-landlord about the family partition and about the allotment of the suit accommodation to the share of the non-applicant. The non-applicant had also sent a notice, demanding arrears of rent from the applicant. Inspite of these notices, the applicant went on denying that the non-applicant was his landlord. Not only this, he refused to send the arrears of rent to the non-applicant. The non-applicant had also sent a notice, demanding arrears of rent from the applicant. Inspite of these notices, the applicant went on denying that the non-applicant was his landlord. Not only this, he refused to send the arrears of rent to the non-applicant. He being a stranger to the family could not challenge the partition between the father and the sons. If the applicant considered the family partition between his ex-landlord and his sons to be fictitious and if, under the circumstances, he had any doubt as to the person who was entitled to receive the rent of the suit accommodation, his remedy was by way of filing an application under section 25 of the Act before the Rent Controlling Authority. This he did not do. On the contrary, he persisted on denying the partition between Rajaram and his sons and the title of the non-applicant over the suit accommodation even after the filing of the suit. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the Court below was right in holding that the dispute under Sec. 13 (1) of the Act was raised by the applicant on grounds which were false and frivolous to his knowledge and in striking out his defence under section 13 (4) of the Act accordingly. Learned counsel for the applicant cited several authorities in support of his contention that the applicant was within his right in challenging the partition between Rajaram and his sons. However, none of the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the applicant was on the point of striking out the defence of a tenant under sec. 13 (4) of the Act in similar circumstances. Consequently, I do not think it necessary to discuss the various authorities cited by the learned counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that even after striking out of his defence, the applicant could resist the suit on grounds available to him under the general law. There is no dispute about it. The effect of striking out the defence under section 13 (4) of the Act is that the applicant will not be entitled to dispute the existence of one or other of the grounds under section 12 (1) of the Act for his ejectment from the suit accommodation. He can resist the suit on grounds available to him under the general law. Revision dismissed.