IMPORTANT POINT
It is only when the obligations imposed in Section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act cannot be complied with without resolving the dispute under sub-section (2) of that Section, that Section 13(1) will become inoperative till such time the dispute is resolved by the Court by fixing a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation. Where rate of rent is admitted and the quantum of the arrears of rent is disputed, (on the plea that the rent for the period in question or part thereof has been paid or otherwise adjusted), sub-section (2) of Section 13 is not attracted as determination of such a dispute is not postulated thereunder.

Headnote:M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Section 12(1)(a) r/w Section 13(2)-Wilful default in payment of rent-Eviction on ground of-Determination-Provisionally amount of rent payable u/s 13(2), when condition precedent to pass order of eviction-If there is dispute as to amount of rent payable by tenant, Court is enjoined to fix a reasonable rent-Where rate of rent is admitted and quantum of arrears of rent is disputed sub-section (2) of Section 13 is not attracted-It is only when obligations imposed in Section 13(1) cannot be complied with without resolving dispute under sub-section (2).
       A cursory reading of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act makes it clear that non-payment of arrears of rent legally recoverable from a tenant within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner, is one of the grounds for filing a suit in a Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from the rented accommodation. But the legislative mandate contained in sub-section (3) of Section 12 is that no order of eviction of a tenant shall be made if he makes payment or deposit as required by Section 13 of the Act. The proviso appended to Section 12(3) restricts entitlement to the benefit available under that sub-section. It cannot be availed by a tenant who having obtained such benefit once in respect of any accommodation again makes a default in payment of rent of that accommodation for three consecutive months. (Para 9)
       The scheme of Section 13 of the Act suggests that the provisions thereof are intended for the benefit of both the tenant as well as the landlord. While Section 13 affords protection to a defaulting tenant, willing to abide by the obligation to pay the rent regularly, against eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, it also ensures payment of rent to the landlord, which he is entitled to receive for both the pre-litigation period as well as during the pendency of the litigation. A perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 13 discloses that it imposes twin obligations on the tenant against whom a suit or proceeding is instituted on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 12. The first is that within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf, the tenant shall deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord an amount, representing (a) arrears of rent for the period for which the tenant may have made default and (b) rent for the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made, duly calculating the same at the rate of rent at which it was paid. And the second is payment/deposit of rent for the period thereafter, that is, further rent which he shall continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month, at that rate. For the purpose of depositing the amount of rent, sub-section (1) refers to three periods in chronological order, i.e.,
        (i) period for which arrears of rent are due, which is the subject matter of notice of demand served on the tenant;
        (ii) period for which rent became due subsequent to the notice of demand till the date of deposit of rent in Court; and
        (iii) period for which rent will become due in future, after the date of deposit as aforementioned, till the decision of suit or appeal.
       The following illustration will help in elucidating the import of the provisions under consideration; if a tenant has last paid rent of tenanted premises, say @ Rs.1,000 for the months of January and did not pay for February, March and April and notice of demand claiming arrears of rent for those months was served on him in May; the Act permits him to pay the arrears of rent within two months of service of demand, i.e., till end of July. Assuming he has failed to do so and the landlord files the suit under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of which writ of summons is served on the tenant on September 15, for his appearance in the Court, he has the second opportunity to pay arrears of rent in Court within one month of service of summons on him i.e. till October 14, or within such further time as the Court may allow; but at that stage along with arrears of rent for the said months he has also to pay/deposit rent for the months from May to the end of September. The second obligation of depositing the future rent continuously from month to month covers the period commencing from October and ending with the decision of suit or appeal. The arrears of rent and the future rent for each month, in the illustration, have to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 1000/- (Para 10)
       The abovestated two obligations are independent of each other. Compliance of the second does not depend upon fulfilment of the first obligation. It is evident that Section 13(1) applies on institution of a suit on any of the grounds in clauses (a) to (p) of Section 12(1) and not merely to one under clause (a) default in payment of rent. In cases under clauses other than (a), the tenants might have been paying the rent regularly and the question of payment/deposit of arrears of rent or rent for the period subsequent to service of summons, may not arise. Can then, based on the word "thereafter", it be argued that there will be no liability to deposit future rent - the second obligation noted above. In our view such a contention will be defeating the object of the provision and will be impermissible. Having stated how the amount of rent payable by the tenant for the periods specified therein should be calculated and deposited, the provision imposes further obligation to deposit the rent month by month till the termination of the suit or proceedings. The word "thereafter" is merely indicative of sequence of the second obligation to deposit the future rents; it is certainly not suggestive of the fact that if the first obligation for any reason cannot be complied with then the occasion to comply with the second obligation does not arise or that it automatically comes to an end. It would be unthinkable that that could be the intention of the legislature. The tenant s liability to deposit the rent for any of the periods, noted above, in the Court does not depend upon and has no relation to depositing the rent for any of the earlier periods. When the rate of rent payable each month and the quantum of arrears of rent are admitted, no problem arises in complying with Section 13(1) of the Act Difficulty may, however, arise in complying with the two requirements or sub-section (1) of Section 13, noted above, when dispute is raised by the tenant with regard to either the amount of rent payable by him or with regard to the person who is entitled to receive the rent. (Paras 11 & 12)
       A careful reading of sub-section (2) shows that the Court is enjoined to fix a reasonable provisional rent, in relation to the accommodation, to be deposited or paid in accordance with the provision of sub-section (1) if there is a dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant. The clause "the court shall" fix a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation clearly indicates that any dispute as to the amount of rent is confined to a dispute which depends on the rate of rent of the accommodation either because no rate of rent is fixed between the parties or because each of them pleads a different sum. Where the dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant has no nexus with the rate of rent, the determination of such dispute in a summary inquiry is not contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 13. Such a dispute has to be resolved after trial of the case. Consequently, it is only when the obligations imposed in Section 13(1) cannot be complied with without resolving the dispute under sub-section (2) of that Section, that Section 13(1) will become inoperative till such time the dispute is resolved by the Court by fixing a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation. It follows that where the rate of rent and the quantum of arrears of rent are disputed the whole of Section 13(1) becomes inoperative till provisional fixation of monthly rent by the Court under sub-section (2) of Section 13, which will govern compliance of Section 13(1) of the Act. But where rate of rent is admitted and the quantum of the arrears of rent is disputed, (on the plea that the rent for the period in question or part thereof has been paid or otherwise adjusted), sub-section (2) of Section 13 is not attracted as determination of such a dispute is not postulated thereunder. Therefore, the obligation to pay/deposit the rent for the second and the third period aforementioned, referred to in Section 13(1), namely, to deposit rent for the period subsequent to the notice of demand and for the period in which the suit/proceedings will be pending that is (future rent) does not become inoperative for the simple reason that Section 13(2) does not contemplate provisional determination of amount of rent payable by the tenant. As resolution of that category of dispute does not fall under Section 13(2) the tenant has to take the consequence of non payment/deposit of rents for the said periods. If he fails in his plea that no arrears are due and the Court finds that the arrears of rent for the period in question were not paid, it has to pass an order of eviction against the tenant as no provision of Section 13 of the Act protects him. (Para 14)
       Where the rate of rent payable by the tenant for the accommodation is not in dispute and the quantum of arrears of rent is not paid/deposited either because the tenant pleads that he has paid the arrears of rent or adjusted the same towards the amounts payable by the landlord or in the discharge of his liability, the tenant succeeds or fails on his plea being accepted or rejected in that behalf by the court. In such a case sub-section (2) is not attracted because the plea taken by the tenant has to be adjudicated by full fledged trial and not in a summary inquiry postulated for fixing a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation in question. This being the position a tenant takes the risk of suffering an order of eviction by raising a dispute in regard to the amount of rent payable by him while admitting the rate of rent and not making payment or deposit under sub-section (1) because where the dispute raised by the tenant is outside the ambit of sub-section (2), sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act does not become inoperative. There can no debate on the proposition that the tenant is relieved of the consequences of default in payment of rent on his paying/depositing the rent under sub-section (1) at the rate last paid or at the rate fixed provisionally under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act but if the tenant takes a false or frivolous plea in regard to the amount of rent payable by him, which does not involve fixation of provisional rent under Section 13(2), he runs the risk of suffering an order of eviction either under sub-section (6) of Section 13 or after trial under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. We are not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned Amicus that the legislature, having provided a ground for eviction of a tenant under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, nor merely diluted but has nullified its effect by enacting Section 12(3) and sub-sections (2) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act. A liberal but harmonious construction of clause (a) of sub-section (1), sub-section (3) of Section 12 and sub-sections (1), (2), (5) and (6) of Section 13 does not lead us to the conclusion that clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 has in effect been rendered illusory. (Paras 16 & 17)
       In the instant case, the findings of the courts below are : that the tenant did not pay the rent for the period from March to July 1976; indeed, the finding of the trial Court which was confirmed by the Appellate Court is that the tenant forged receipts (Exs. : D1 to D4) for the said months and that he had committed default in payment of rent. It appears that on the application of the landlord the trial Court fixed provisional rent @ Rs. 60/- per month and left the question of arrears of rent to be decided on trial. Consequently, non-determination of provisional rent by the trial Court under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act becomes inconsequential. There is thus non-compliance of Section 13(1) of the Act and the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 13(5) read with Section 12(3) of the Act. (Para 24)

JUDGMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is : can the court pass a decree for eviction of a tenant under Section 12(1)(a), without first determining provisionally the amount of rent payable under Section 13(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, when the tenant, having admitted the rate of rent, failed to establish that he had paid the arrears of rent?

2. This appeal, by special leave, is preferred by the landlords challenging the validity of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, in Second Appeal No. 183 of 1993 passed on December 16, 1997.

3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal need be noticed.

One Bherulal was the owner of house No. 1/796, Brahmin Gali,Ujjain, (Madhya Pradesh) in which he let out three rooms (hereinafter referred to as the suit accommodation ) for residential purposes to the respondent (tenant) on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. A rent note was also executed on December 4, 1971. The said Bherulal passed away, leaving behind him the appellants (landlords) among other heirs, on April 19, 1972. It is stated that in the partition of his properties among his heirs the suit accommodation fell to the share of the landlords. On November 29, 1976, the landlords issued a notice to the tenant terminating his tenancy on two grounds - (i) default in payment of arrears of rent for the period commencing from 2.3.1976 to 2.4.1977 and (ii) creating nuisance. On the plea that despite service of the notice of demand the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent nor did he abate nuisance, the landlords filed Civil Suit No. 340-A of 1989 in the court of Civil Judge Class-II, Ujjain, M.P. for recovery of possession by ejectment of the tenant under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (for short the Act ). The tenant contested the suit pleading that he had paid the arrears of rent and denying the ground of nuisance; however, he admitted that the rent was Rs. 60/- per month. On the basis of the evidence produced by the parties before it, the trial Court found that receipts produced by the tenant in proof of payment of rent for the period from March to July, 1976 (Exs. D1 to D4) were forged and that the tenant committed default in payment of rent for the said period; it ordered his prosecution also under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The ground of nuisance was also accepted. On December 20, 1990, in view of these findings, the trial Court decreed the suit for eviction of the tenant. Against that judgment the tenant filed appeal in the court of 1st Additional District Judge, Ujjain, M.P. On April 27, 1993, the Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs. In the tenant s second appeal, the High Court framed the following substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure :

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree passed by the courts below under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, without fixing provisional rent in terms of Section 13(2) of the said Act, despite dispute about the quantum of arrears of rent, is sustainable in law?"

4. The High Court took the view that as the tenant disputed being in arrears of rent and no provisional rent was determined by the trial Court, the operation of the whole of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act was arrested as such the tenant could not be met with the penal consequences of eviction decree denying him the benefit of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. It was also noted that the tenant had cleared all the arrears accruing due during the pendency of the suit and appeal so the landlords claim for eviction on the sole ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act must fail and thus allowed the second appeal by the judgment impugned in this appeal.

5. Mr. A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel appearing for the ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 802

Cases Referred (3)