JUDGMENT Briefly narrated the facts are that the suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction, arrears of rent, declaration and injunction against the petitioners claiming himself to be owner of the property and the petitioners to be the tenant at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month. It is further alleged that the rent was due from 1.11.81. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement of sale and purchase of the disputed property by agreement dated 7.10.86. Since the plaintiff did not execute the sale deed, according to the agreement, a suit for specific performance of agreement to sale was filed by the applicant. The said suit was ultimately dismissed. During all this period the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent remained pending. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for a prayer that clarification be made by the Court with respect to the arrears of rent. That application has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this petition. The learned counsel for the respondent prays that the revision petition is not maintainable as it is an interlocutory order. Learned counsel contended that by virtue of the agreement entered between the parties the tenancy has come to an end and hence no rent is payable. He was' net liable to pay any rent. He also argued that in compliance of the order passed in the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract, the petitioner had deposited the damage awarded. He moved an application out of which this revision petition has arisen for clarification. The learned counsel has, however, not been able to show the specific provision under which the application was moved. He has also not been able to show any specific provision under which such an application can be said to have been moved. He, however, takes shelter under section 13(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. In reply to this contention learned counsel for the respondent Shri Bharadwaj contends that an application U/S 13(2) was filed by the respondent. The petitioner opposed this application in respect of the rent. I have considered the contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the parties. Copy of the application dated 17.3.98 has not been filed by the petitioner but a copy of the application has, however, been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner opposed this application in respect of the rent. I have considered the contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the parties. Copy of the application dated 17.3.98 has not been filed by the petitioner but a copy of the application has, however, been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent. During the course of the argument it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the copy of the application would show that it was moved in order to seek clarification of order dated 5.3.98. I may point out here that the order dated 5.3.98 is not before the Court and it has not been challenged. Hence, the order dated 5.3.98 has become final. It is, therefore an interlocutory order. Now according to the provision of section 13(2) of the Accommodation Control Act that application is not covered within the said provision once it is found that this application was not covered u/s 13(2) of the Accommodation Control Act it has to be taken that it is an interlocutory application. The order passed on this application cannot amount to case decided. Consequently no revision lies. Before parting with I may observe that as the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the tenancy ceased by virtue of the agreement cannot be gone into in this revision petition and it is left to be taken into the consideration by the learned trial Court. However, learned trial Court shall dispose of the case expeditiously as it is a very old case. With the above observation this revision petition is therefore, dismissed.