ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.

2. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/tenant has challenged the order dated 08.07.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby an application under Section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 preferred by the respondents/landlords has been allowed and his defence against eviction has been struck off.

3. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on various grounds enumerated under Section 12 (1) of The Act, 1961. The defendant has filed his written statement contesting the claim submitting that he is not a tenant of plaintiffs in the suit premises, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and him and that he is in possession of the suit premises by virtue of an agreement to sale having been executed in his favour by the plaintiffs.

4. The defendant has hence categorically denied his status as that of a tenant in the suit premises. For that reason he contends that he is not liable to pay any rent to the plaintiffs and has hence not deposited the arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiffs nor has chosen to comply with the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act, 1961. Under such circumstances the application under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961 was filed by the plaintiffs which has rightly been allowed by the trial Court.

5. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the defendant that the effect of the order striking off defence would be that defendant would not be able to contest the suit is wholly misplaced. Though as a result of striking out of defence against eviction of the defendant, he would not be entitled to lead evidence on dispute under Section 12(1) of the Act but he would still be entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witnesses to demolish his case and he can raise contest regarding issues on general law. Though he would not be entitled to claim protection against ejectment on ground under Section 12(1) of the Act but would not be precluded to contest the suit on other issues. This has been the consistent view of the Apex Court and of this Court. It may be profitable to refer to the decision of this Court in Sahiba Masood V/s. Tahbboor Ali Khan 1998 (2) MPLJ 610 in which it has been held as under :-

“3. In the suit for eviction based on a ground under section 12(1), the defendant has two types of defences (1) which are known as common law defence and (2) which are available to the tenant under the Accommodation Control Act itself. The Common Law defence are like the liability to pay the rent, the arrears of rent, the relationship of landlord and tenant and the ownership of the property. But under the Accommodation Control Act, the defences which are available to the tenant are to disprove the case of the landlord and show to the Court by leading cogent evidence that availability of a ground under section 12(1) is not made out. When a tenant challenges the ownership or the relationship of landlord and tenant, this may probably be a dispute under section 13(3) of the Act. A Court before striking out the defence is required to decide the said dispute. If despite direction the tenant does not deposit the rent then his defence available to him under the Accommodation Control Act can certainly be struck out but this striking out the defence available to a tenant under the Accommodation Control Act would not have the effect of striking out the defences of the tenant which are available to him under the Common/General Law. If a tenant wants to take advantage of the defences which are available to him under the Accommodation Control Act, then he should deposit the rent but if he does not deposit, then such defence would not be available to him. If such a tenant proves his common law defence by leading cogent evidence that there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant or