( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order, dated 6-10-1987 (Annexure P-5), passed by First Civil Judge, Class II, Shivpuri, in Civil Suit No. 124-A/1986, and order dated 22-2-1988 (Annexure P-6) passed in Civil Revision No. 33/1987, by District Judge, Shivpuri. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts leading to this petition are: The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and for arrears of rent against the petitioner/tenant averring therein that defendant was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.

100/- by one Dinanath Sharma. The tenancy was oral, which commenced from 16-9-1981. Dinanath Sharma died on 10-11-1983, who executed a will in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. It was alleged in the plaint that petitioner/defendant paid rent to plaintiff/respondent till 31-1-1986; from 1-2-1986 the petitioner did not pay any rent, hence, a notice of demand, demanding the rent due was served on the petitioner. The petitioner did not tender or pay the amount in the period prescribed by law, hence, the respondent instituted the suit for eviction and arrears of rent. The petitioner in his written statement denied the allegations and contended that he is a tenant of one Khachhuram Kuswah on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/ -. The relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff/respondent and him was denied.

( 3. ) AFTER the receipt of summons, the tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent due within one month, hence, an application was filed by the respondent under section 13 (6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the act) for striking out the defence of petitioner/tenant. The trial Court vide order dated 6-10-1987 (Annexure P-5) ordered that the dispute about the relationship of landlord and tenant can only be decided after recording evidence, hence, the petitioner was directed to deposit all the arrears of rent due within one month from the date of that order. Against this order, a revision was taken to the Court of District Judge, Shivpuri, who, vide order dated 22-2-1988 (Annexure P-6), maintained the order of the trial Court and observed that according to the provisions of section 13 (3) of the Act, the petitioner is bound to deposit the rent, and the rent so deposited will not be withdrawn by the plaintiff till the dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant is decided. The petitioner did not deposit any rent as ordered by the two Courts, hence, the tiral Court vide order, dated 13-7-1988 (Annexure P-7), ordered to strike out the defence of the petitioner.

( 4. ) SHRI Arun Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the trial Court has not decided the dispute in accordance with section 13 (2) of the Act; as the rate of rent was also in dispute, the trial Court was bound to fix a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation, to be deposited or paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1 ). That having not been done, the orders of the two Courts below and the order of striking out the defence deserve to be quashed. Reliance was placed on Single Bench decisions of this Court in Ashok v. Shri Vallabh Gupta, 1981 JLJ SN 74; Lokumal v. Swastika Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. , 1980 MPRCJ N 105; Ajhar Karim v. Mohammad Ismail, 1980 MPRCJ N 61 and Babulal v. Pratap, 1980 (II) WN192. ( 5. ) SHRI N. K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent/landlord contended that as the order of striking out the defence has already been passed, a remedy of revision is available to the petitioner; therefore, this petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel further contended that if the petitioner does not consider himself to be the tenant of the respondent, he may not comply with the provisions of section 13 (1) and, after suffering the consequences mentioned in section 13 (6) of the Act, he may still continue to contest the case on the dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant. Shri J