Dixit C.J.- l. This revision petition has come up before this Division Bench for disposal on a reference made by one of us.

2. The matter arises thus. The petitioner Premdas instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, for ejectment of the defendant-opponent from a house situated in Jabalpur and for recovery of arrears of rent. The ejectment is sought on the grounds that the defendant has fallen in arrears of rent for the period from 1st November 1961 to 1st March 1962 and that he has also sub-let the house without obtaining the plaintiff's permission. In his written statement the opponent has denied that he was ever the tenant of the plaintiff According to him, one M. M. Pande was the tenant of the premises which had been let out to' him by Baba Saraswatidas, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The opponent has also raised the objection that the petitioner has no right to maintain the suit inasmuch as the plaintiff's claim to the property in suit rests on a will executed by the late Baba Saraswatidas and the plaintiff has not obtained any letters of administration of the will. The opponent admitted that he did not pay any rent to the petitioner and stated that he was under no obligation to pay any rent to him. He denied that he or anyone else had sub-let the premises. After the filing of the suit an order was made by the trial Judge under section 13 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing the opponent tenant to deposit rent. On 1st August 1963 it was stated on behalf of the tenant that he was not prepared to deposit the arrears of rent. Thereupon, the trial Judge made an order under section 13 (6) of the Act striking out the opponent's defence against eviction. The Court ordered that the opponent's "defence is struck out so far as it relates to eviction."

3. On the pleading, of the parties, the trial Judge framed only three issues, namely, whether the suit was maintainable as the petitioner had not obtained any letters of administration whether the opponent was the petitioner's tenant; and the relief to which the petitioner was entitled. Thereafter the plaintiff's evidence was recorded and closed. When the defendant-opponent began to lead his evidence, the petitioner raised the objection that the defendant-tenant was not entitled to tender any evidence as his defence had been struck out and that he was only entitled to cross-examine the Plaintiff's witnesses. This objection was overruled by the learned civil Judge by making the observation that the opponent's defence against eviction only had been struck out and that he still had other defences open to him and was, therefore, entitled to lead evidence in relation to the issues framed in the suit. It is against this order that the present revision petition is directed.

4. The reference was necessitated because of the importance of the question of frequent occurrence, namely, whether in a suit for ejectment on any of the ground, stated in section 12 of the Act it is open to the defendant-tenant, whose 'defence against eviction' has been struck out by an order under sub-section (6) of section 13, to raise other defences not falling under section 12 against ejectment. The petitioner's contention is that the effect of an order under section 13 (6) is to debar the defendant-tenant from raising any defence against ejectment and not merely the defence against ejectment resting on any of the grounds covered by section 12.

5. Before examining the tenability of this contention it is necessary to refer to the provisions of section 13 of the Act which is as follows:-

"13. When tenant can get benefit of protection against eviction. (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