ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 13.7.2017. By said order, application filed by petitioner for striking out defence of defendant was dismissed. 2. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that since defendant has taken a stand that he is not a tenant, therefore, order of eviction cannot be passed and defence against eviction has to be struck down by the trial Court. 3. Counsel appearing for respondent submitted that petitioner is not a tenant, therefore, provisions of section 13 (6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 will not be applicable in the case. 4. Heard the counsel for the parties. 5. As per section 13 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, if a suit is instituted by landlord on any of the grounds enumerated in section 12, then if he deposits rent within one month of service of notice, then he will get protection against eviction. Only requirement for getting protection is to deposit the rent within one month from date of filing suit or receipt of notices in a suit filed on grounds enumerated in section 12. Court can proceed against tenant striking out his defence if landlord has filed a suit on grounds enumerated in section 12. This means that pleadings made by defendant in his written statement is not to be taken into consideration. Court is not required to consider the defence of defendant and Court has only to see whether suit has been filed on grounds referred to in section 12 and in such a condition if defendant was served with a notice and he has not deposited rent within period of 30 days, then Court can proceed to strike out the defence of defendant. 6. In this case, respondent had taken a defence that he is not tenant, therefore, section 13 of the Act of 1961 is not attracted in the case. Respondent is defendant before the trial Court. Defence of defendant is not to be considered while deciding application under section 13. Court is only required to see that suit has been instituted on grounds mentioned in section 12 (1) and whether defendant has complied with condition enumerated in section 13(1) of the Act of 1961. On failure of defendant to comply with condition enumerated in Section 13(1) of the Act of 1961, Court can proceed to strike out the defence of defendant. 7. On failure of defendant to comply with condition enumerated in Section 13(1) of the Act of 1961, Court can proceed to strike out the defence of defendant. 7. In view of aforesaid, order dated 13.7.2017 is quashed. Defence of defendant in respect of eviction is struck down. Defendant is free to raise other defences which are not related to the grounds of eviction before the trial Court. 8. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is allowed.