1. This revision arises out of a suit filed by the opponent against the-applicant for ejectment and arrears of rent. The defence is that the defendant 'is not a tenant and has been living in the premises on his own rights for a number of years. The defendant did not deposit rent as required under section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act of 1961. His defence there-fore has been struck off by the Court under sub-section 6 of section 13. Against the order of striking out the defence, this revision has been filed by the defendant Ghote1al.

2. Section 13 (1) of the Act is reproduced below:-

"On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in section 13, 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 m1de default including the period sub-sequent 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."

3. It will be clear from the above section that the condition which are necessary for exercising jurisdiction under sub-section 6 of section 13 are (1) that the suit should be instituted by a landlord on the grounds mentioned in section 12 of the Act (2) that the suit should be against a tenant, and (3) that within one month of the service of the writ or sommons or within such further time the Court may allow the tenant must pay in the Court or to pay to the landlord the rent (I am avoiding words which are not necessary for the purpose of this decision.)

4. The applicant has not challenged the existence of the conditions of number 1 and 3. His contention is that he is not his tenant and section 13 (1) can be made applicable only when the suit is filed against a tenant.

5. There is substance in this contention. In the above section the word "tenant is used and not "defendant". If the Legislature meant that when ever a suit is filed by a landlord for ejectment and rent against a defendant alleging that he is a tenant, it would have used the word "defendant" and not the tenant. If section 13, is interpreted in that way then when ever a suit is filed by a landlord for ejectment and arrears of rent against a person even falsely, the defendant would be obliged to pay rent to the landlord or to deposit the same in the Court; It is therefore clear that before section 13 can be made applicable there should be a decision that the defendant is a tenant. If the defendant challenges the same the Court must give a finding to that effect. Unless such a finding is given the liability mentioned in section 13 cannot be incurred.

6 The defendant who is denying from the very beginning to be a tenant, in order to fight out his case will have to be out of pocket to the extent of the sum of rent mentioned by the landlord. No doubt making a false and frivolous claim is an offence and at the same time a compensatory costs under S. 35-A C. P. Code can be granted; but that does not completely compensate for the loss the defendant suffers in many ways in fighting a false claim. I would therefore hold that before applying section 13 (1), the Court must give a finding that the defendant in the case is a tenant, when the same is challenged.

7. The landlord has been defined in section 2 (b) whereas the tenant has been defined under S. 2 (i) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. In the Act words landlord and tenant have been used and not plaintiff and defendant. The Court therefore before applying S. 13 (1) must find out that the plaintiff fulfils the conditions of a landlord and the defendant those of a tenant