Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Gayatri Devi Surve vs Mahendra Pratap Singh on 9 April, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8238
1 MP-5899-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 9 th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5899 of 2023
SMT. GAYATRI DEVI SURVE
Versus
MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Chandra Chandil - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shatru Daman Singh Bhadouriyia - Advocate for the respondent [R-1].
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by
the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by learned Executing
Court whereby an application under Section 151 CPC preferred by the
petitioner/decree holder to proceed with execution proceedings and issue the
possession and recovery warrant against the judgment debtor/tenant/respondent
No.1 was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before the Executing
Court, the execution proceedings filed by the petitioner to execute the decree of
eviction and arrears against the respondent No. 1 is pending adjudication. Vide
order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in F.A.
272/2014, an interim order was granted in favour of respondent No.1 whereby
respondent No. 1 was permitted to remain in possession of accommodation in
question subject to compliance of provision of Section 13 of the M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, failing which the interim order shall stand vacated.
The respondent No. 1 did not comply with the provision of Section 13(1)of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8238
2 MP-5899-2023
M.P. Accommodation Control Act as he did not deposit the rent as required under
said Section, therefore, the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court automatically stood vacated. In such circumstances, the court below ought
to have allowed petitioner's application and should have issued warrant of
possession and recovery against the respondent No. 1, but the court below rejected
the petitioner's application which is illegal and contrary to law. Thus, it is prayed
that present petition be allowed and the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by learned
Execution Court be set-aside and learned Court below be directed to proceed
further with the pending execution proceedings.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that
due to Covid-19, the rent could not be deposited till April, 2020. Thereafter,
original plaintiff Smt. Pushpmala died on 23.08.2021 and no one was left in
Gwalior to receive the rent. There is already a suit pending between the legal
representatives of Smt. Pushpmala and in the light of the said dispute, the
respondent No.1 could not deposit the rent. However, the rent for period from May
2020 to 31.10.2022 was deposited on 09.09.2022. Thus, learned Court below has
rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioner which needs no
interference.
4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in F.A. No.272/2014 vide order dated
01.09.2015 ordered as under:-
"In the meanwhile appellant shall be permitted to remain in possession
of accommodation in question subject to his compliance of provisions
of Section 13 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, failing which
the interim order shall stand vacated."
6. For reference, Section 13(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961
is quoted herein-below:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8238
3 MP-5899-2023
"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."
7. From bare reading of the aforesaid section, it is clear that the aforesaid
section mandates tenant to deposit rent even during pendency of appeal and its
disposal thereof month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. The
respondent No.1 had deposited the rent for the period from May, 2020 to
31.10.2022 on 09.09.2022, therefore, had committed default in complying with the
provision of Section 13(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 subject to
which the benefit of interim order was extended in favour of respondent No.1.
Even if the benefit of limitation as provided by Hon'ble Apex Court in suo moto
writ petition No.3/2020 could be said to have been available to respondent No.1,
but that too was available till 28th February, 2022 and one month thereafter, but
even after passing of the said period, no application was moved for extention of
time. Thus, the interim order dated 01.09.2015 could be said to had automatically
stood vacated.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has contended that the
application for extension of stay is already pending before the First Appellate
Court, but had not been decided till date, therefore, learned Executing Court had
rightly rejected the application, which to this Court appears to just a tactic of
respondent No.1 to linger on the matter, as till date, he had not cared to get the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8238
4 MP-5899-2023
said application decided which is pending since 2022 and in a way, learned
Executing Court had allowed the said application, which is not permissible.
9. So far as the contention of respondent No.1 that due to dispute between
the LRs of deceased plaintiff Pushpmala, the rent could not be paid is concerned,
the respondent No.1 could had very well deposited the rent before the Court as
provided under Section 13(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
10. In view of above, learned Executing Court had erred in rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC. Consequently, the
petition is allowed. The order dated 18.11.2022 is set-aside. Learned Executing
Court is directed to conclude the execution proceedings as expeditiously as
possible.
11. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
