Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyamsundar Maheshwari vs Dr Rameshchand Madoiya W/O Late ... on 5 May, 2022
Author: Sunita Yadav
01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
MP-2917-2021
(SHYAMSUNDAR MAHESHWARI)
Vs.
DR RAMESHCHAND MADOIYA W/O LATE SUNNULAL JU (DEAD)
THR LRS 1. DR SMT KAUSHALYA KUMARI AND OTHERS)
Gwalior, Dated 05/05/2022;
Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
respondents.
This petition u/Art.227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed assailing the order dated 26/08/2021 passed by Vth Civil Judge,
Junior Division, Vidisha, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Case No.RCS
A/700040/2010.
The facts in brief to decide this petition are that the a civil suit
for eviction under the provisions of MP Accommodation Control Act
was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioner. The
petitioner/defendant filed the written statement, whereby tenancy has
been denied on account of the alleged agreement to sale entered into
between the parties with respect to the suit property. The
respondents/plaintiffs filed an application u/S.13(6) and 13(2) of M.P.
Accommodation Control Act on 23/10/2002 alleging that the
petitioner/defendant is not paying the rent. It was stated in the
application that the defendant has not disputed the rent amount,
however, he is not paying the rent despite the demand for the same
and, therefore, their defense should be struck off.
The petitioner/defendant filed the reply to the aforesaid
application saying that he is not liable to pay the rent. Learned trial
Court after hearing the parties allowed the application by impugned
order and struck off the defense of the petitioner/defendant on account
of non-payment of rent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
order is perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. He has
further submitted that the application u/S.13(6) and 13(2) of M.P.
Accommodation Control Act was filed in the year 2002. The aforesaid
application was kept pending for a long time for the reason that earlier
there was stay from the High Court on account of pendency of the
civil suit filed by the mother of the petitioner with respect to the suit
property for specific performance of contract. It is further submitted
that said suit of specific performance has been decreed in favour of
the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 26/09/2003 passed by
the trial Court, however, the respondents/plaintiffs challenged the
aforesaid judgment and decree. This court has set aside the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the
Apex Court because of the pendency of the civil suit due to the
lockdown, the petitioner/defendant could not deposit the rent. He has
further submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the
petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.52,800/- and therefore, the
impugned order may be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued
that the impugned order is in accordance with law and this Court has
no jurisdiction to condone the delay in depositing the rent.
Heard.
The provisions of Section 13(1) and 13(2) of M.P
Accommodation Control Act reads as under;
13. When tenant can get benefit of protection against
eviction. -
[(1) On a suit or any other proceeding being instituted by a
landlord on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12 or
in any appeal or any other proceeding by a tenant against
any decree or order for his eviction, the tenant shall, within
one month of the service of writ of summons or notice of
appeal or of any other proceeding, or within one month of
institution of appeal or any other proceeding by the tenant,
as the case may be, 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 made default
including the period subsequent thereto up to 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 till the decision of the
suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be.
(2) If in any suit or proceeding referred to in sub-Section
(1), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by
the tenant, the Court shall, on a plea made either by
landlord or tenant in that behalf which shall be taken at the
earliest opportunity during such suit or proceeding, fix a
reasonable provisional rent, in relation to the
accommodation, to be deposited or paid in accordance with
the provisions of sub-Section (1) and no Court shall, save
for reasons to be recorded in writing, entertain any plea on
this account at any subsequent stage]."
Thus it is clear that this provisions protects a tenant from
eviction if a tenant makes deposit/payment as required by the sub-
section 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar
Mishra and another Vs. Goverdhan Bai [AIR 2017 SC 1819] held
that the protection to tenant available only if he regularly pays rent
after filing the suit and defaults in payment of rent after filing of suit
cannot be condone.
In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court the impugned order cannot be set aside for the reasons that the
petitioner has deposited some amount of the arrears of rent during the
pendency of this petition. In view of the admitted fact that the
petitioner/defendant has not paid the rent in accordance with the
provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the impugned order
is not found to be perverse or contrary to the settled principles of law.
Consequently, petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV)
vpn JUDGE
VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
2022.05.10
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
14:14:45
+05'30'
