Madhya Pradesh High Court
Premnarayan Choubey vs Shri Bihari Ji Mandir Sadavrata ... on 20 June, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 20 th OF JUNE, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 832 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. PREMNARAYAN CHOUBEY S/O SHRI BABULAL
CHOUBEY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PUJARI NEAR MAIN BOARD SCHOOL
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SANTOSH TIWARI S/O SHANKARLAL TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PUJARI
NEAR MAIN BORAD SCHOOL HOSHANGABAD
TEH AND DISTT HOHSANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.K.DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI BIHARI JI MANDIR SADAVRATA SANSTHA
SARVAJANIK NYAS AGRAWAL SAMAJ
HOSHANGABAD THR. PRESIDENT SHRI SURESH
CHANDRA AGRAWAL S/O SHRI RADHA VALLABH
AGRAWAL HOSHANGABAD TEH. AND DIST.
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI ANIL AGRAWAL S/O CHIMAN VALLABH
AGARWAL OCCUPATION: SECRETARY
HOSHANGABAD TAH. AND DISTT.
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE THOUGH SERVED)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India questioning the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 6/22/2023
2:16:03 PM
validity of the order dated 01/10/2019 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the Court
below allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 13(6) of
M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1961').
Counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners had also moved an
application under Section 13(2) of 'Act 1961' before the Court below but
without deciding the said application and even referring the same in the order
Court allowed the application of Section 13(6) of Act' 1961' of respondents,
due to which defence of petitioners has been struck down. He further submits
that when there is dispute raised by the defendant with regard to the rent of the
premises application moved by them has to be decided first and then only order
on an application under Section 13(6) of 'Act 1961' can be passed by the
Court. He has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in 1999(1) MPLJ 497
(Sankata Devi Verma Vs. Jagdish Singh Chandel).
It is clearly mentioned in the written statement submitted by the
defendants that there was some repair made by the defendants-petitioners with
the consent of plaintiff and they spent total Rs.82,000/- and that amount as per
the plaintiff was to be adjusted from the rent of the premises, therefore, in view
of the said adjustment the rent has not been paid by the defendant.
I have perused the order and the record.
In my opinion, the order passed by the Court below is not sustainable
for the reason that proper facts have not been taken note of. It was obligatory
for the court below to consider whether application filed under Section 13(2) of
'Act 1961' was to be considered or if so then what would be rent which was to
be deposited by the defendants-petitioners. The Court was also under
obligation to consider the fact that a specific plea has been raised by the
defendants that an amount of Rs.82000/- has been spent in repairing the house
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 6/22/2023
2:16:03 PM
and that amount was adjustable as per the promise made by the plaintiffs.
Without considering the said aspect allowing the application of was not proper.
Petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 01/10/2019 (Annexure-
P-6) passed by the Court below is set-aside. Trial Court is directed to consider
the application afresh taking note of the stand taken by the defendants in written
statement and also the fact about pendency of application filed by the
defendants under Section 13(2) of Act 1961.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
sushma
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 6/22/2023
2:16:03 PM
