The provisions of S. 13(6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 apply 'mutatis mutandis' to proceedings for eviction under S. 23-A and the Rent Controlling Authority has the power to strike out the defence of the tenant-non-applicant for non-deposit of rent.

( 1 ) THE present revision by the landlady/applicant No. 1 and the other applicants is directed against the interim order dated 31-7-1989 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority in Case No. 51/86-87. It may be mentioned that the revision was barred by limitation as provided under S. 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. But, then, vide order passed by this Court on 7-7-1992, it, in the facts and circumstances of the case, considered it proper to entertain the same in exercise of its suo motu power under the said Section and as such there remains no question of it being barred by limitation.

( 2 ) AS the tenant-applicant had not deposited rent during the pendency of the case instituted by landlady-applicant No. 1 and the other applicants for his eviction from the accommodation in question under S. 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the landlady-applicant No. 1 and the other applicants made an application to the Rent Controlling Authority for striking out his defence under Sub-Sec. (6) of S. 13 of the Act. But, then, since in his written statement, the tenant non-applicant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it was held by the Rent Controlling Authority vide his order dated 31-7-1989 that before it could pass any order in respect of the said application it was necessary that they produced evidence before it to establish the fact that the defendant-non-applicant was the tenant of the landlady-applicant No. 1 in respect of the said accommodation.

( 3 ) THE present revision under S. 23-E of the Act is directed against the abovesaid order dated 31-7-1989 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. In the opinion of this Court, there is an error of law apparent on the face of the said order. In fact, it was for the said reason that this Court vide its order dated 7-7-1992 considered it proper and to be in the interest of justice to interfere with the said order in exercise of its suo motu power of revision under S. 23-E.

( 4 ) NOW, it is laid down in S. 23-H of the Act that the provisions of S. 13 thereof shall apply 'mutatis mutandis' in respect of an application for recovery of possession of accommodation under S. 23a and in respect of proceedings for revision under S. 23-E against final order by the Rent Controlling Authority under S. 23-C or under S. 23-D as they apply to a suit or proceedings instituted on any of the grounds referred to in S. 12; provided that no suit or proceedings for eviction of the tenant is pending before any Court at any of its stages in relation to the same accommodation. In the case before us, there was no material on record indicating that there was any suit or proceedings of eviction of the tenant-non-applicant pending before any Court in relation to the accommodation in question. Thus, the proviso to S. 23-H was not attracted in respect of it. It, therefore, followed that in accordance with the main part of the said Section, the provisions of S. 13 of the Act applied 'mutatis mutandis' in respect of the proceedings in question initiated by the landlady-applicant No. 1 and the other applicants for eviction of the tenant-non-applicant from the accommodation in question under S. 23-A. It, therefore, further followed that as the tenant-non-applicant had admittedly failed to deposit rent in respect of the accommodation in question as required by Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 13 of the Act, the Rent Controlling Authority had power to direct his defence against eviction to be struck out under Sub-Sec. (6) of the said Section.

( 5 ) IN the above connection, it may be mentioned that the stand taken by the tenant-non-applicant in the proceedings in question that there had existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did not make difference to the exercise of power of striking out his defence by the Rent Controlling Authority under Sub-Sec. (6) of S. 13 read with S. 23-H of the Act. Needless to say, what could be directed to