JUDGMENT Petitioners-defendants through this revision petition filed under section 115, of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code'), are challenging the correctness and propriety of the impugned order dated 14.12.98, passed by Vth Civil Judge. Class II, Durg in Civil Suit No. 1A/95, whereby their application filed under section 13, of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act (for short the 'Act') read with section 151, of the Code, seeking facility of instalments in depositing the arrears of rent, was dismissed. Non-petitioners 1 to 3 - plaintiffs had instituted suit against the petitioners-defendants for eviction. The trial Court, vide its order dated 21.9.98, directed the petitioners-defendants to deposit the arrears of rent within a period of one month and to deposit monthly rent by 15th of every month, and in the event of their failure to deposit the arrears of rent and monthly rent, their defence under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, would be struck out. The revision petition filed by the petitioners-defendants against the trial Court's order dated 21.9.98 already stands dismissed vide order dated 6.10.98, passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 2218/98. After the dismissal of the above revision petition, the petitioners-defendants appears to have filed an application under section 13, of the Act, read with section 151, of the Code, on 9.11.98, seeking the facility of instalments in depositing the arrears of rent. The trial Court, vide into impugned order dated 14.12.98, though dismissed the petitioners-defefendants' above application filed under section 13, of the Act, and 151 of the Code but, however, granted grace period of 15 days for depositing the arrears of rent, failing which the defendant's defence, under the Act, would be struck out. Shri A.D. Deoras, the learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in denying the facility of instalments to the petitioners, who are poor persons and as such, are not in a position to deposit the whole of the amount of arrears at once. Shri Ashok Chakravorty, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners 1 to 3 - plaintiffs, supported the impugned order and submitted that the plaintiffs had filed this suit for eviction, in the year 1995, and the same is pending for more than 4 years. Shri Ashok Chakravorty, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners 1 to 3 - plaintiffs, supported the impugned order and submitted that the plaintiffs had filed this suit for eviction, in the year 1995, and the same is pending for more than 4 years. It is further submitted that the petitioners-defendants have no bonafide intention of depositing the arrears of rent and they are filing applications and revisions, one after the other, just with a view to linger on the eviction proceedings pending against them. This eviction suit was filed in the year 1995. The petitioners-defendants filed their written statement after almost 3 years, in the year 1998. From para 6 of the petition, it is gathered that out of the arrears of Rs. 9,000/-, the defendants have deposited Rs. 2,800/- only so far. The suit relates to a non-residential accommodation (shop), wherein the petitioners-defendants are carrying on business of electrical items. On considering the nature of the business which the petitioners are carrying on and their past conduct, it is difficult to believe that they were not in a position to deposit the arrears of rent, which was only Rs. 9,000/-. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is satisfied that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petitioners' application, filed under section 13, of the Act, read with section 151, of the Code, seeking the facility of instalments, in depositing the arrears or rent. As the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the interim order passed by this Court staying further proceeding in Civil Suit No. 1A/98, pending in the Court of Vth Civil Judge. Class II, Durg stands vacated automatically.