ORDER : This revision petition under section 115 of the CPC is preferred under section 23-E of the M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') being aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) in case no.0013/A-90 (7) 2022-23 by Rent Controlling Authority (for short 'the RCA'), Juni Indore whereby defence of the petitioners/tenants has been struck off under section 13(6) of the Act of 1961. 2. Facts in brief are that respondent/landlord filed an application (Annexure A/2) under section 23 of the Act of 1961 before the Rent Controlling Authority, Juni Indore for eviction of the tenants/petitioners on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit accommodation let out for residential purposes. 3. The application was replied through Annexure P/3. 4. Landlord/respondent filed an application (Annexure P/4) under section 13(6) of the Act of 1961 to stike out the defence of the petitioners/tenants. The application was replied and also filed an application to condone the delay in depositing the rent (Annexure P/5). Annexure P/5 was opposed through reply available at page no.64 to 70 and the Rent Controlling Authority struck out the defence and fixed the case for final arguments. 5. Challenging the legality of the order, this petition is preferred on the ground that order passed is arbitrary and on the face of it perverse also. The petition was filed claiming the rent of Rs.30,000/- per month and thereafter the default is pointed out on the calculation of Rs.35,000/- per month and Tribunal failed to appreciate those facts. The RCA erred in allowing the application as he failed to fix a reasonable provisional rent and also failed to appreciate the legal position that stiking out of defence can be only ordered in exceptional circumstances. There was no enquiry of the RCA under section 13(2) of the Act of 1961. Counsel for the petitioners/tenants relied on Dina Nath (Dead) through legal representatives and another vs. Subhash Chand Saini and others - (2019) 9 SCC 477 ; Jamnalal and others vs. Radheshyam (2000) 4 SCC 380 ; Shyamcharan Sharma vs. Dharamdas - (1980) 2 SCC 151 and Ranjit Singh and another vs. State of Uttarakhand & others - 2024 INSC 724 . 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally with consent. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally with consent. 7. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition on the ground that no compliance has been made out despite the order dated 14.10.2024 in CR No.768/24 by the High Court of M.P, Bench Indore (Annexure P/8) and there is no misunderstanding regarding the rate of rent because agreement of tenancy itself provides 7% increase at the time of further renewal of the tenancy. 8. Perused the record. 9. In the light of provision for enhancement of rent in the lease deed and claim of respondent/landlord in para-13 of Annexure P/2 as Rs.35,000/- rent per month from Ist of January, 2023 and correction in line no.7 of para-6 of Annexure P/2 vide order dated 08.07.2024 and thereafter vide order dated 14.10.2024 in C.R.No.768/24 by the High Court of M.P at Indore (Annexure P/8) observation that it is made clear that no dispute as regards rate of rent or amount of rent has been raised by the petitioners in their statement, the objection that no provisional rent has been fixed by the RCA under section 13(2) of Act of 1961 has relevance. 10. The RCA has mentioned at page-4 of the impugned order that default for September, 2023, December, 2023, January, 2024 & June, 2024 in depositing the rent has been committed along with the default in payment of arrears of rent of Rs.6,74,000/-. The order has been passed after the order of this Court in C.R No.768/24 on 14.10.2024. Accordingly, argument that petitioners have not been afforded opportunity of hearing or action comes within the purview of wrongful exercise of discretion does not succeed on the strength of Dina Nath (supra); Jamnalal (supra); Shyamcharan Sharma (supra) and Ranjit Singh (supra) in the facts transpired from the record. Accordingly, the RCA did not commit any error in striking out the defence under section 13(6) of the Act of 1961. 11. Now the argument that case has been fixed for final argument and that deprived the petitioner/tenant/defendant from his right to exercise general defences is being considered. Para-3 of Sabiha Masood vs. Tahabbur Ali Khan - 1998 (2) MPLJ 610 is being referred as below: 10. 11. Now the argument that case has been fixed for final argument and that deprived the petitioner/tenant/defendant from his right to exercise general defences is being considered. Para-3 of Sabiha Masood vs. Tahabbur Ali Khan - 1998 (2) MPLJ 610 is being referred as below: 10. In the suit for eviction based on a ground u/s 12 , the defendant has two types of defences (1) which are known as common law defence and (2) which are available to the tenant under the Accommodation Control Act itself. The Common Law defence are like the liability to pay the rent, the arrears of rent, the relationship of landlord and tenant and the ownership of the property. But under the Accommodation Control Act, the defences which are available to the tenant are to disprove the case of the landlord and show to the Court by leading cogent evidence that availability of a ground u/s 12(1) is not made out. When a tenant challenges the ownership or the relationship of landlord and tenant, this may probably be a dispute u/s 13(3) of the Act. A Court before striking out the defence is required to decide the said dispute. If despite direction the tenant does not deposit the rent then his defence available to him under the Accommodation Control Act can certainly be struck out but this striking out the defence available to a tenant under the Accommodation Control Act would not have the effect of striking out the defences of the tenant which are available to him under the Common/General Law. If a tenant wants to take advantage of the defences which are available to him under the Accommodation Control Act, then he should deposit the rent but if he does not deposit, then such defence would not be available to him. If such a tenant proves his common law defence by leading cogent evidence that there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant or the plaintiff is not the owner or even by cross-examining the plaintiff''s defences that a ground is not available to the landlord to evict the defendant, then this right is not hampered by striking out the defence. The effect is only that the defendant would not be permitted to lead evidence to disprove the availability of the ground u/s 12(1) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act. 12. The effect is only that the defendant would not be permitted to lead evidence to disprove the availability of the ground u/s 12(1) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act. 12. Accordingly, petitioner/defendant/tenant is entitled to prove their common law defence by leading cogent evidence that there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant or plaintiff is not the owner or even by cross examining the plaintiffs' witnesses that a ground is not available to the landlord to evict the defendant. It is made clear that petitioners/defendants would not be permitted to lead evidence to disprove availability of the ground under section 12(1) of the Act of 1961. 13. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the order of the RCA for posting the case for final hearing is set aside and the RCA, Juni Indore is directed to decide the matter after providing opportunity as mentioned above.