ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Umesh Trivedi. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 14-11-1996 and confined to the order passed on the application under section 13(6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. So far as tenancy was concerned, the defendants accepted the same. So far as amount of rent payable i.e. rate of rent was concerned, that was also accepted. The dispute was only in regard to the fact as to whether the amount as claimed in the notice is due or not due. Learned counsel submitted that under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the concerned authority to determine amount of rent i.e. arrears of the rent as to how much the arrears or whether there is any arrears or not. In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Anandilal v. Shiv Dayal Pandey, 1977 MPLJ 822 and invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 20 of the order which in fact is answer part of the question referred: "20. Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us as follows:- (1) Even when there is no dispute with regard to the rate of rent and the dispute is only with regard to the arrears of rent, on such a dispute, till the Court passes an order under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act, the operation of the whole of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act is arrested. To be more specific, the liability of the tenant to deposit monthly rent for the preceding month under the second part of section 13(1) does not commence until an order under sub-section (2) of section 13 is made. To be more specific, the liability of the tenant to deposit monthly rent for the preceding month under the second part of section 13(1) does not commence until an order under sub-section (2) of section 13 is made. (2) The order contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act is the one with regard to that part of deposit under section 13(1), for which there is a dispute." This case is not attracted as in the law then existing the provision was different and the provision was that "when the tenant disputes that the amount claimed by the landlord is excessive and not due." Whole of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 13 of the Act were substituted by M. P. Act No. 27 of 1983 w.e.f. 16-8-1983 and the amended sub-section (2) is as extracted below: "(2) If in any suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section (1), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Court shall, on a plea made either by landlord or tenant in that behalf which shall be taken at the earliest opportunity during such suit or proceeding, fix a reasonable provisional rent, in relation to the accommodation, to be deposited or paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) and no Court shall, save for reasons to be recorded in writing, entertain any plea on this account at any subsequent stage." 4. Reading of the whole of the provision gives the clear indication as to what the legislature meant by using words "amount of rent payable by the tenant." It has to be read in sequence provided under the provision as what the Court would do if any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant is raised. Obligation of the Court thereon starts and the obligation is to fix a reasonable provisional rent. 5. In view of above, the submission advanced by the learned counsel is sans substance. 6. I find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order so to warrant interference under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. SRevision-application is rejected.