1. This order will also dispose of civil revision No. 204 of 1965.

2. The applicant Ganpatrai in civil revision No. 204 of 1965 has filed a suit against Surajprasad, the applicant in this civil revision petition, for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,080 and for eviction of Surajprasad from a house. The plaintiff has alleged that the monthly rent payable in respect of the accommodation is Rs.30 and that Surajprasad has been in arrears of rent from 4th December 1960.

3. After the filing of the suit the defendant Surajprasad did not deposit or pay any amount as required by section 13 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Thereupon, the plaintiff Ganpatrai moved the trial Court under section 13(6) of the Act for Surajprasad's defence against eviction being struck out. The learned Civil Judge, Class 1, Raigarh, who is trying the suit disposed of this application of Ganpatrai by an order dated 17th December 1964 directing the defendant Surajprasad "to deposit the rent as claimed in the plaint except for the amount alleged to have been spent on repairs (sic)". The trial judge also added in the order:-

"In case it is held that no amount has been spent on repairs then the defendant shall have to pay interest at the rate of Rs.1.50 nP. percent per month from the date of the suit till final payment on the whole of decretal amount."

It is against this order that both Ganpatrai and Surajprasad have preferred the two revision petitions.

4. The order passed by the trial judge is utterly untenable and cannot be sustained. Under section 13 (1) of the Act on a suit for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in section 12 being instituted, the tenant is required 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, to 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 is further required to continue to deposit or pay a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. Clause (6) of section 13 lays down that if a tenant fails deposit or pay any amount as required by section 13, the Court may order the defence against eviction to be struck out.

5. It will be seen that under sub-section (1) of section 13 no order of the Court is necessary for the making of a deposit or a payment. The tenant has to make the deposit or the payment 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, allow in that behalf. Where the tenant does not ask for time for being allowed to make the deposit or payment, there can be no justification whatever for the Court to grant him any time for the purpose. Here, the tenant Surajprasad failed to deposit or pay the amount as required by section 13 (1). He did not ask for any time for being allowed to make the deposit or payment. His plea is that he is not required to make any deposit or payment as he has already spent on repairs of the house a sum exceeding that he is required to pay or deposit under section 13 (1). It is this plea of the tenant which the lower Court should have investigated into while considering the application of the landlord Ganpatrai under section 13 (6) for striking out Surajprasad's defence against eviction. It is plain from sub-section (6) that an order striking out the defence can be made only if it is found that the tenant has failed to deposit or pay the amount as required by section 13.

6. Before me it was not disputed by learned counsel appearing for Surajprasad that the rent payable in respect of the accommodation was Rs.30/- per month and that Surajprasad did not actually deposit or pay any amount as required by section 13 (1). It was, however, said that the