Madhya Pradesh High Court
Late Jasveer Singh Through Legal ... vs Late Kashiram Through Legal ... on 9 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:546
1 MP-2765-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2765 of 2024
LATE JASVEER SINGH THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
SURENDRA KAUR AND OTHERS
Versus
LATE KASHIRAM THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
RADHESHYAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Patidar, learned counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 24.04.2024
passed by 3rd Civil Judge, Junior Division Neemuch in Civil Suit RCSA
No.70/2016, whereby, the application filed by the respondents under section
13(6) of MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "The
Act") has been allowed and the defense of the petitioner was struck off.
The respondent no.1 to 3 has filed a suit for eviction against the
petitioner alleging that the respondent no.1 to3 has let out two shops to the
petitioner @ Rs.900/- per month for both the shops and thereafter the rate of
rent was increased to Rs. 1600/- for both the shops. It was further alleged
that the petitioner has paid the rent up to 31" December 2014 thereafter, the
petitioner has not paid the rent to the respondent and from 1st January 2015
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:546
2 MP-2765-2024
till filing of the suit the rent is due on the petitioner. It is submitted that the
tenancy of petitioner and respondents are 20 to 21 years old. It was also
alleged that the respondents are in the need of the suit shop therefore, having
the bonafide requirement of the suit shop and also the petitioner is not paying
the rent regularly therefore, has filed the present suit for eviction against the
petitioner. It is necessary to mention here that during the pendency of the
present suit on 31/12/2020 the plaintiff no.1 Kashiram died however,the
plaintiff no.2 & 3 are his sons and are already on record:therefore, the name
of Kashiram was deleted.
The petitioner contested the case by filing the written statement and
denied all the averments made in the plaint. It was stated by the petitioner
that the petitioner was regular in paying the rent and has not committed any
mistake of paying of rent from last 20-25 years. It was also stated that the
respondents having no bonafide need of the suit shop and just to harass the
petitioner has filed the present suit. It was also stated that the respondent
having other alternate accommodation therefore, in such circumstances the
petitioner prays for dismissal of the suit. It is necessary to mention here that
during the pendency of the suit original defendant Jasveer Singh S/o Mohan
Singh has died therefore, his legal representative were taken on record.
It is submitted that during the pendency of the case the respondents
have filed an application under section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation
Control Act stating that the petitioner is not paying the rent regularly
therefore, his defence may. kindly be struck off. It is necessary to mention
here that the application filed by the respondents does not contain any detail
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:546
3 MP-2765-2024
or period from where to where rent is due on the petitioner and the rent was
not paid by the petitioner.
The petitioner filed the reply to the said application and submits that
on 06/01/2018 the trial.court has fixed the provisional rent and thereafter the
petitioner was paying rent regularly and has not committed any default and
prays for dismissal of the application.
By the impugned order, the trial court allowed the application filed by
the respondent under section 13(6) of the Act and had struck off the defense
of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that he had not
committed any default in depositing the rent as required under section 13(6)
of the Act.
Learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, submits that the
receipts which were filed regarding deposit of rent were not regarding the
premises in question and they were receipt of some different premises.
Upon perusal of the impugned order Annexure P/5, it is pellucid that
the petitioner had deposited Rs.59,500/- on 06.02.2018 for the period upto
31.01.2018 and thereafter the rent was deposited on 09.03.2018 of Rs.3200/-
for the period from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018. It is mentioned in the table of
the impugned order that the rent deposited on 27.06.2018, 14.02.2019,
19.02.2020, 15.09.2023, 19.03.2024, the period was not mentioned while
depositing the said amount. The trial court has further recorded the finding
that from the record, it appears that the petitioner has deposited amount of
Rs.83,200/- towards the rent whereas, the total amount of rent from March,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:546
4 MP-2765-2024
2018 to the presiding month and from March, 2024 is Rs.96,000/- for total 60
months @ Rs.1600/- per month.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court has not
considered the submission that the default as held by the trial court was
deliberate or the conduct of the petitioner is contumacious or malafide. He
submits that as per the judgment passed by co-ordinate bench in the case of
Ajay Kumar Vs. Shyam Kumar and Ors reported in 2016 (3) MPLJ 521 , the
authority is under obligation to consider that the delay in deposit of rent was
deliberate or the conduct of the petitioner is contumacious or malafide. In the
present case, the trial court has not considered the aforesaid aspect.
The para 6 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"This court in the matter of Manoharlal Gopial Pande Vs.
Dr.Abdul Mazid Khan reported in 1997(1) R.C.R (Rent) 606:
1997 (1) MPLJ 232 has taken the view that if entire rent is already
deposited and delay caused in payment of rent is not such as
would cause a material injury to the landlord, the delay in payment
of rent is liable to be condoned. In the matter of Smt.Mamtaz Bee
Vs. Smt. Salma Bee, reported in 2001(I) MPACJ 155 it has been
held that provisions under section 13(6) is of penal nature and
must be resorted to only when it is shown that the default was
deliberate. Similar is the view expressed by this court in the matter
of Gayaprasad Vs. Pooranchand and Another reported in 1972 JLJ
Short Note 49 and in the matter of Girishchandra Vs. Prabha Dani,
reported in 1980 (1) MPWN 239."
In view of the aforesaid judgment and upon perusal of the impugned
order, this Court finds that the trial court has not properly considered the
record of the deposit of rent as submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner and also the delay if any in deposit of the rent was whether
deliberate or the conduct of the petitioner is contumacious or malafide.
This court further finds that the submission of learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:546
5 MP-2765-2024
respondent that the receipts were filed of different premises was also not
considered.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 is
quashed.
The court is directed to decide the application afresh in accordance
with the law without being influenced by the impugned order expeditiously
before proceeding further in the trial.
With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
