JUDGMENT The defendants in a suit for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are the revision petitioners. Respondent filed a suit for eviction alleging that she purchased the building from one Kamlabai and the tenancy of the defendants who were tenants of Kamlabai has been terminated by notice. The defendants filed written statement denying the tenancy and attornment and further denied possession of Kamlabai and subsequent possession of the plaintiff. According to them, the building belonged to one Kandhilal who died during the pendency of the suit leaving behind his son Durga Prasad. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants purchased the building from Durga Prasad. They filed two applications -- one under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. producing the sale deed obtained from Durga Prasad and the other seeking amendment of written statement incorporating the averment relating to purchase. The plaintiff filed an application under Sec. 13 (6) of the Act for striking off the defence of the defendants for non-payment of rent. The lower Court by common order rejected the applications filed by the defendants and allowed the plaintiff's application directing the defendants to deposit rent by 16.4.1994. This order is now challenged. The sale deed sought to be produced by the defendants was no doubt obtained after suit. But that relates to the suit property and the contention that the property belonged to the vendor has already been raised in the written statement. The defendant was only trying to bring to the notice of the Court the subsequent events by producing the document as well as incorporating the necessary averments in the written statement. The lower Court in dismissing the two applications failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it thereby causing irreparable prejudice to the defendants. I am unable to find any illegality in the order of the lower Court directing the respondents to pay rent. It is true that they disclaimed the liability to pay rent. But if they are desirous of raising defences specified under Act they will have to abide by Sec. 13. If they fail to deposit the rent, they cannot raise such defences but can only raise other defences which do not arise under the Act. In these circumstances, the impugned order rejecting the defendants' applications is set aside and the applications are allowed. If they fail to deposit the rent, they cannot raise such defences but can only raise other defences which do not arise under the Act. In these circumstances, the impugned order rejecting the defendants' applications is set aside and the applications are allowed. I decline to interfere with the order passed under Sec. 13 (6) of the Act excepting to determine the date for payment of rent as 20.6.1995. Revision petition is accordingly disposed of.