JUDGMENT The respondent herein filed a suit against the revision petitioner seeking decree for eviction and arrears of rent on the allegations that petitioner had obtained the suit residential house on rent note dated 12.4.1989 agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs. 500/- and rent has been kept in arrears since April 1989 and that the respondent needs the accommodation for the residence of herself and her family. Petitioner filed written statement contending that she is the owner of the house and on account of necessity she desired to mortgage the house in favour of the respondent and actually a sale deed was executed and on the same day an agreement to sell the house back to the petitioner was also executed. These two documents were executed on the same day. The transactions of sale and agreement constituted really a mortgage and rent note has been obtained for collecting the amount due towards interest on the mortgage. Thus, she purported to deny the existence of landlord-tenant relationship and also denied liability to pay rent. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner did not deposit any part of arrears of rent or the current rent. The respondent thereupon filed an application under section 13 (6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 praying that the defence may be struck off. This application was opposed on the ground that the existence of landlord-tenant relationship is in dispute and unless that is decided she need not deposit the rent. The trial Court overruled this contention and directed her to make deposit indicating that on failure to deposit the rent the defence will be struck off. This order is now challenged. My attention has been invited to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Inderlal v. Mahngi Bai and ors. ( 1967 JLJ 31 = 1967 MPLJ 125 ). This order is now challenged. My attention has been invited to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Inderlal v. Mahngi Bai and ors. ( 1967 JLJ 31 = 1967 MPLJ 125 ). The Court, after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. I & H Ltd. v. Pneroze Framroze ( AIR 1953 SC 73 ) and Babulal v. Nandram ( AIR 1958 SC 677 ) and a number of decisions of this Court, held that the provisions of section 13 come into play the moment a person, claiming himself to be the landlord of any accommodation, filed a suit for eviction on any of the grounds referred to in section 12 against a person who, according to the plaintiff suing, is the person in occupation of the accommodation as his tenant. Once a suit for ejectment on any of the grounds referred to in section 12 is instituted, the provisions of Sub-section (1) of section 13 operate against the defendant, no matter whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted or denied. If in such suit the defendant did not comply with the provisions of section 13 (1) and the plaintiff applied to the Court for striking out the defence, the consideration of the application cannot be deferred till the determination of the question whether the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff. Having regard to the principles of law laid down as indicated above, I find no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.