Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikas vs Smt. Nirmala Sharma on 14 October, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29277
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
CIVIL REVISION No. 768 of 2024
VIKAS AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. NIRMALA SHARMA
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Jagdish Baheti, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Jitendra Bharat Mehta, learned counsel for respondent.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
(Reserved on 23.09.2024)
(Pronounced on 14.10.2024)
1. By this revision preferred under Section 23-E of M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 read with Section 115 of the
CPC the petitioners/non-applicants have challenged the order dated
22.08.2024 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority whereby an
application under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961 filed by the
respondent/applicant had been allowed and their defence against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29277
eviction has been struck off.
2. The respondent has filed an application under Section 23-A of
the Act, 1961 against the petitioners for their eviction from the suit
premises contending that they are her tenants therein at Rs.35,000/-
per month, that they are in arrears of rent in the sum of Rs.6,74,000/-
and that the suit premises are bona fide required by her.
3. The petitioners have contested the eviction application by filing
their reply to the same submitting that they are not tenants of the
respondent in the suit premises bearing house No.91-A, Anoop
Nagar, Indore as contended by the respondent. They are instead
tenants in house No.90-A. In respect of suit premises house No.91-A
there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the
respondent who is not even the owner of the suit premises.
4. During course of proceedings before the Rent Controlling
Authority, an application under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961 was
filed by the respondent for striking off the defence of the petitioners
submitting that they have failed to deposit the arrears of rent and also
the monthly rent as per Section 13(1) of the Act, 1961. The
application was contested by the petitioners in which they disputed
the rate of rent as well as quantum thereof and also the person to
whom rent is payable. The application has been allowed by the Rent
Controlling Authority by observing that there has been a default in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29277
the sum of Rs.60,000/- by the petitioners in the matter of payment of
rent.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
6. From pleadings of the petitioners themselves it is clear that they
have denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the
respondent and them. They have specifically stated that they are not
tenants of the respondent in the suit premises and that she is not the
owner thereof. Though they have contended that they are tenants of
the respondent in a different house bearing No.90-A but the fact
remains that they have emphatically stated that they are not tenants
of respondent in the suit premises in respect of which the eviction
application has been filed by her.
7. From perusal of the entire written statement filed by the
petitioners it is evident that no dispute has been raised by them
therein as regards either the rate of rent of the suit premises or the
arrears thereof or the person to whom rent is payable. Their only plea
is that the respondent is not the owner of the suit premises and is
consequently not entitled to seek their eviction. The averments made
in reply to the application under Section 13 (6) of the Act, 1961
cannot be regarded to be any pleading made by them. The judgment
in the case of Jamunalal and Others V/s. Radheshyam 2004 Supreme
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29277
Court Cases 380 relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is hence not applicable to the facts of the case.
8. As per Section 13(1) of the Act, 1961, the tenant has to within
one month of service of writ of summons upon him 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 the arrears of
rent and has to thereafter continue to pay the monthly rent by the
15th of each succeeding month.
9. There is no dispute as regards rate of rent having been raised by
the petitioners in their written statement or as regards the quantum of
arrears of rent or the person to whom the same is payable. They
however seek to defend the claim of eviction of the respondent on
grounds as set up in the eviction application and contend that their
defence against eviction cannot be struck off since they have
complied with the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act, 1961. For
that they are required to prove that they have deposited the entire
arrears of rent within one month of service of writ of summons upon
them or within the extended time. They also have to show that ever
since the institution of the eviction proceedings they have been
depositing the monthly rent by the 15th day of the succeeding month
and that the delay, if any, in payment of such rent has been condoned
by the Rent Controlling Authority. The authority was also required to
ascertain as to whether the entire conditions of Section 13(1) of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29277
Act, 1961 have been complied with by the petitioners. It has
however only considered the fact as regards deposit of the monthly
rent from the date of institution of the eviction application.
10. In the available facts of the case, the impugned order dated
22.08.2024 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority deserves to be
and is accordingly set aside. It is directed to redecide the application
under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961 filed by the respondent by
ascertaining whether the entire legally recoverable arrears of rent has
been deposited by the petitioners as per the provisions of Section
13(1) of the Act, 1961 and whether they have paid the monthly rent
for each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month. It is made
clear that no dispute as regards rate of rent or amount of rent has
been raised by the petitioners in their written statement. The Rent
Controlling Authority will also take into consideration the fact
whether any delayed deposit in payment of rent has been condoned
by it or not.
11. With the aforesaid direction, revision stands disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
