( 1 ) THIS is a petition to revise an order of the First Civil Judge, Second Class, jabalpur, postponing consideration of the plaintiff-applicant's prayer under Section 13 (6) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. 1951, for striking out the non-applicants' defence against eviction till after the determination of the question whether the non-applicants are tenants of the petitioner

( 2 ) THE revision petition has been placed before us for hearing and disposal as there arc conflicting Single Bench decisions of this Court on the question whether before invoking Section 13 of the Act against the defendant in a suit for eviction there must be first a finding that the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff. A reference to these decisions will be made later On the language of Section 13 of the Act, and regard being had to the object and purpose of the provision, we have no hesitation in holding that the provisions of Section 13 come into play the moment a person, claiming himself to be the landlord of any accommodation, flies a suit for eviction, on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12, against a person who, according to the plaintiff suing, is the person in occupation of the accommodation as his tenant. Section 13 (1) is as follows:

"13 (1) On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. "

Sub-section (2) of Section 13 gives to the Court the power to fix a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation when there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the "tenant". The next sub-section empowers the court to direct the "tenant" to deposit in Court the amount payable by him under sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) when "in any proceeding referred to in Subsection (1) there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable. We are not concerned with the fourth Sub-section under which the Court can order the defence against eviction to be struck out if it finds that any dispute referred to in Sub-section (3) has been raised by a "tenant" for reasons which are false or frivolous. If a "tenant" makes a deposit or payment as required by Subsection (1) or Sub-section (2), then, as provided by Sub-section (5), no decree for his eviction can be passed on the ground of his having made a default in the payment of rent. The last sub-section, namely, Subsection (6) says that if a "tenant" fails to deposit or pay any amount as required by Section 13, the Court may order his defence against eviction to be struck out.

( 3 ) THE opening words of Section 13 (1), namely, "on a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12, the tenant shall. . . . deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord" are very significant and furnish the answer to the question raised for determination in this revision petition the words "on a suit or proceeding 'being instituted'" (underlined herein ' ' by us)clearly do not involve the requirement of any finding being given either on the question whether the plaintiff suing is the landlord or on the question whether the defendant sued is the tenant. This follows from the normal meaning of the important words "being instituted" Once a suit for ejectment, on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12, is instituted, the provisions of Sub-section