JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the Rent controlling Authority, Jabalpur, dated 4-4-1984. ( 2. ) FACTS necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that the non-applicants filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for a decree for eviction under section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 but in this application before the Rent Controlling Authority it appears that the non-applicant-plaintiff also made a statement that the tenant has not deposited rent from August 1983 to October 1983 and this application was filed in the month of November 1983. In an application submitted by the petitioner for leave to defend before the Rent Controlling Authority it was stated that from 1st August 1983 to 30th September 1983 Rs. 250/- were paid by the petitioner tenant to the landlord but no receipts were given in spite of the repeated requests and it was further stated that from 1-10-1983 the petitioner defendant is ready and willing to pay. The learned Rent Controlling Authority granted leave to defend to the present petitioner and when the proceedings were pending before the Rent controlling Authority an application was made by the non-applicant landlord under section 13 (6) of the Accommodation Control Act for striking out the defence of the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner defendant replied to this prayer by saying that as he has raised a dispute about payment of two months rent, i. e. August and September 1983, and about which no order was passed as contemplated under section 13 (2) and, therefore, an order for striking out the defence could not be passed against the petitioner. By the impugned order the Rent Controlling Authority observed that the permission to defend could not be granted to the petitioner. In substance, what he meant was that the permission granted is revoked and he directed that ex parte evidence be recorded and he has further directed that on ejectment plaint whatever court-fee is payable be deposited probably on the basis of arrears and it is against this order that the present revision petition is filed. ( 3. In substance, what he meant was that the permission granted is revoked and he directed that ex parte evidence be recorded and he has further directed that on ejectment plaint whatever court-fee is payable be deposited probably on the basis of arrears and it is against this order that the present revision petition is filed. ( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that under section 23-A the rent Controlling Authority has been conferred jurisdiction to try a suit or a proceeding only in respect of eviction on the ground of genuine requirement and under section 23-A the Rent Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction whatsoever to decree arrears of rent or to grant a decree for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. Under these circumstances, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question of arrears is not within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controlling Authority and, therefore, the direction for withdrawing permission to defend on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the Court below was not right in passing the impugned order. Alternatively, it was contended that if the question of arrears could be considered by the Rent Controlling Authority, then as a dispute has been raised at the very first stage permission to defend was sought and still as no provisional order was passed by the Rent Controlling Authority under section 13 (2)an order under section 13 (6) could not be passed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants, on the other hand, contended that even if the question of arrears could not be gone into, it was incumbent on the petitioner to deposit the rent from the date of the application till today before the Rent Controlling Authority as section 13 is applicable not only to suits before the Civil Court but also to proceedings before the Rent controlling Authority and it is, therefore, contended that in absence of the amount being deposited by the petitioner, the Court below was right in passing the impugned order which, in substance, amounts to striking out the defence. ( 4. ( 4. ) IT was also contended that athough a decree for eviction on the ground of arrears may not be passed by the Rent Controlling Authority but a decree for arrears which the plaintiff is entitled to could be passed by the Rent Controlling Authority and, therefore, the Rent Controlling Authority could have passed an order for directing deposit of the arrears also. ( 5. ) IT appears that the learned Rent Controlling Authority while passing the impugned order was not clear as to whether he could go into the question of arrears of rent or not. Section 23-A which confers jurisdiction on the Rent Controlling Authority clearly provides : "23-A. Special provision for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide requirement. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or contract to the contrary, a landlord may submit an application, signed and verified in a manner provided in rules 14 and 15 of order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) as if it were a plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the following grounds for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the accommodation, namely :- (a) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required "bona fide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, or for any person for whose benefit, the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, accommodation let for residential purposes includes : - (i) any accommodation which having been let for use as a residence is without the express consent of the landlord, used wholly or partly for. Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, accommodation let for residential purposes includes : - (i) any accommodation which having been let for use as a residence is without the express consent of the landlord, used wholly or partly for. any non-residential purpose; (ii) any accommodation which has not been let under an express provision of contract for non-residential purpose; (b) that the accommodation let for non-residential purpose of continuing or starting his business or that or any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned : provided that where a person who is a landlord has acquired any accommodation or any interest therein by transfer, no application for eviction of tenant of such accommodation shall be maintainable at the instance of such person unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of such acquisition. " It is, therefore, clear that the jurisdiction has been conferred on the Rent Controlling authority to grant a decree for eviction only on the ground of bona fide requirement as contemplated under section 12 (1 ) (c) and (8) (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control act. It is very clear from perusal of this section that neither the Rent Controlling authority has any jurisdiction to grant a decree for arrears of rent nor has any jurisdiction to grant decree for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. It appears that the non-applicant plaintiff when submitted this application for eviction on the ground of genuine requirement, he also incidentally mentioned that he was entitled to recover rent from August 1983 and, therefore, in reply when permission to defend was sought, the tenant petitioner mentioned that he had paid rent from 1st August 1983 to 30th september 1983 about which no receipt has been passed but he is prepared to pay the rent from 1st October 1983 onwards. It is, therefore, clear that when this application for eviction was made in the month of November 1983 and it could only be entertained on the ground of genuine requirement, the non-applicant landlord could not recover the arrears of rent from 1st August 1983 upto the date of filing of this application before the rent Controlling Authority. Under section 13 (1) after the application is filed before the rent Controlling Authority, the tenant is bound to deposit every month the rent as contemplated under section 13 (1) but is not bound to deposit any arrears of rent nor the rent Controlling Authority has any jurisdiction to pass any decree or order for recovery of arrears of rent. It appears that in this view of the matter the Rent Controlling authority committed an error of jurisdiction in entertaining an application under section 13 (6) on the ground that arrears of rent were not paid as contemplated under section 13 (1 ). It is also apparent that in the initial defence which was indicated when permission to defend was sought a dispute was raised by the petitioner about payment of two months rent i. e. August and September 1983, and, therefore, unless the Rent controlling Authority had passed an order in respect of this dispute under section 13 (2)an order under section 13 (6) could not be passed and in this view of the matter also, therefore, the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority dated 4-4-1984, is apparenty misconceived. ( 6. ) AS it is clear that under section 23-A the Rent Controlling Authority had no jurisdiction to pass any order or direction or a decree in respect of arrears of rent. The application of the provisions of section 13 (1) or (2) in respect of arrears will not arise in a suit or proceeding before the Rent Controlling Authority for eviction on the ground of genuine requirement. Under these circumstances, it appears that all these proceedings were misconceived. It is also clear that the petitioner tenant who was permitted to defend is bound under section 13 (1) to deposit rent commencing from the month of november 1983 when an application was made before the Rent Controlling Authority. It appears as has been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner sought permission of the Rent Contriving Authority to deposit this amount but he was not so permitted. It appears as has been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner sought permission of the Rent Contriving Authority to deposit this amount but he was not so permitted. ( 7. ) AS discussed earlier, the impugned order could not be justified in law. The revision petition wallowed. The order passed on 4-4-1984 is hereby quashed. It is further directed that as the question of arrears is not within the jurisdiction of the Rent controlling Authority, the petitioner tenant shall deposit before the Rent Controlling authority all rent from November 1983 till today within two months from today and the rent Controlling Authority having granted permission to te petitioner to defend shall proceed to dispose of the proceedings before it in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.