ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri B. I. Mehta, learned senior counsel with Shri Ajay Asudani for the petitioner. Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. A tenant has approached this Court taking exception to the order of the trial Court dated 25-1-2019 inter alia contending that trial Court ought not to have passed the impugned order at the instance of the respondent-plaintiff under section 13(6) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act with the consequence of striking of defence, if the alleged arrears of rent are not deposited for two reasons (i) similar application at the instance of respondent-plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court on 23-2-2018 (Annexure P/8); (ii) petitioner-tenant has always made it clear to the Court below that the suit premises was vacated by her as far as back on 29-10-2016 and possession was delivered to the respondent-plaintiff, therefore, she does not incur the liability of payment of rent since then. The trial Court in its orders passed on 14-11-2017, 23-2-2018 and 1-11-2018 has taken cognizance of the aforesaid facts and concluded that it is a question of fact and can be ascertained after parties lead evidence. 3. Per contra, Shri Phadke contends that civil suit was filed on 8-3-2017. Petitioner has not deposited a single penny towards rent except Rs. 37,000/- for two months of the period August and September, 2016. As such the petitioner-defendant is not entitled for defending the suit. It is denied that petitioner-tenant is not in occupation of the suit premises and denied that possession was delivered to respondent-plaintiff on 29-10-2016. It is further submitted that despite order passed by the trial Court on 14-11-2017 the petitioner-defendant has not deposited the arrears of rent. Hence, no further interference is warranted in the order impugned, whereunder failure of deposit of arrears of rent, the defence is ordered to be strucked off under section 13(6) of the Act. 4. Upon hearing counsel for the parties it appears that there is a peculiar dispute between the parties. On the one hand petitioner-defendant says that she has delivered possession of the suit premises to the respondent-plaintiff on 29-10-2016 and on the other hand the respondent-landlord disputes and denies the aforesaid assertion. 4. Upon hearing counsel for the parties it appears that there is a peculiar dispute between the parties. On the one hand petitioner-defendant says that she has delivered possession of the suit premises to the respondent-plaintiff on 29-10-2016 and on the other hand the respondent-landlord disputes and denies the aforesaid assertion. In the obtaining facts and circumstances and in the fitness of things it is considered expedient to appoint the Commissioner to visit the house in question and deliver the possession of the premises to the respondent-landlord, if he is not in possession and obtain a written acknowledgment of delivery of the possession. 5. Shri Vivek Patwa, Advocate, present in the Court is appointed as Commissioner. He shall be paid Rs. 5,000/- (` Five thousand only) each by the petitioner and respondent as Commissioner’s fees, total Rs. 10,000/- before hand. He shall notify the date to the respondent-landlord on which date he shall visit the premises for the aforesaid purpose. 6. Now the issue remains is that of arrears of rent, if any. Both parties shall be afforded full opportunity to lead evidence before the Court below. The trial Court shall advert to the same and pass judgment thereupon in accordance with law. The factum of delivery of possession by the Commissioner shall have no bearing on the controversy related to claim of arrears of rent as reiterated above. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court the trial Court in all fairness could not have passed the impugned order in the teeth of the earlier order passed under section 13(6) of the Act on 23-2-2018. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order passed on 25-1-2019 is set aside. The misc. petition stands allowed and disposed of. C.c. as per rules.