Rajendra Kumar Nehe Alias Raju ... vs Shailendra Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9722 MP

                                                      1
                 IN        THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT INDORE
                                             BEFORE
                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                           ON THE 27 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                       MISC. PETITION No. 5644 of 2022

               BETWEEN:-
               RAJENDRA KUMAR NEHE ALIAS RAJU BHAI S/O LATE
               YASHWANT   RAO,   AGED   ABOUT  55    YEARS,
               OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE 31 JAWAHAR MARG NAI
               SADAK SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....PETITIONER
               (BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR VIJAYWARGIYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
               THE PETITIONER)

               AND
               SHAILENDRA SINGH S/O RAMKISHAN DIKHIT, AGED
               ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS BEHIND ITI
               INFRONT LANE OF BUNGLOW OF RAMVEER
               SIKARWAR    VIJAYNAGAR    SHAJAPUR    (MADHYA
               PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
               (BY SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
               RESPONDENT)

                          This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

               following:
                                                       ORDER

Heard.

2 . The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by order dated 18.10.2022, passed by the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shajapur, District Shajapur (M.P.) in RCSA Signature NotNo.56/2019.

Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 6/27/2023 6:00:02 PM

3. The petitioner who claims to be landlord filed a suit for eviction under

Section 12(1)(A) of M.P. Accommodations Control Act for eviction of the respondent, on the ground that respondent has not paid rent to the petitioner from 1.1.2017 to 30.4.2019 amounting to Rs.3,08,000/-. Since the respondent did not pay the rent, as directed by the trial court, the right to defence of the respondent was struck under Section 13(6) of the Act. This order was challenged before the High Court and the respondent did not succeed before this court. By the impugned order, the trial court has permitted the defendant to lead the evidence as general defence is still available to him.

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the right to defence was struck out, the Court should not have permitted the defendant to

lead the evidence and the same could have been confined only to quantum of arrears of rent and the adjustment claimed. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Kewal Kumar Sharma vs. Satish Chandra Gothi & Another, 1991, JLJ

5. Counsel for the respondent submits that the aforesaid objection cannot be considered at this stage and the same can be raised at the time of the defendant's evidence.

6 . After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions, I do not find any legality in the impugned order. However the petitioner will have liberty to raise the aforesaid objection at the time of evidence of the defendant.

7. With the aforesaid liberty, the present petition is disposed off.

8. The trial court shall proceed with the matter and shall make an Signature Not Verified endeavour to expedite the trial.

Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 6/27/2023 6:00:02 PM C.c. as per rules.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE SS/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 6/27/2023 6:00:02 PM