Important Point:
High Court rightly held that tenant in liable to be evicted and decision Ist appellate court was erroneous but High Court was not justified in passing adverse remarks against the presiding officer of the Ist appellate court. Appeal is dismissed but application to expunge the remarks is allowed.
Editorial Note:
There is some typrofitical error in the conclusion of judgment. The appeal of Tenant is in fact dismissed but IA of judicial officer is allowed. But concluding para says Appeal is also allowed.

Headnote:(i) M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Sections 12(1)(a) r/w 13(1) and (5) - Eviction petion on ground of Non - payment of rent - Arrears of rent not paid after service of notice of demand - Arrears of result not deposited in trial court deposited in Appellate court without and application but - Whether tenant is entitiled to benefit of s.13(5) ? (No)
       Held : Under clause........................notice (para 6)
       Held further Reading both...............(5) (para 8)
       (ii) M.P.Accommodation control Act, 1961 - Section 12 - Eviction petition on ground of bona fide
       need - Decreased by trial court - reversed by 1st appellant ground on extraneous consideration - Set aside by High Court - whether correct ? (yes) - Result - Tenant is liable to be evicted.
       (iii) Application by presinding officer of Ist appellate court for expunging the remarks made against him by High Court - Whether he allowed? (Yes)
       Held: Time and agains ................... High Courts (Para 14)
       After stating case Law.
       Held: In view......................... Parties (Paras 18, 19)

Judgment

Phukan, J.

This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 30th January, 1997 passed in Second Appeal No.291 of 1993. The appeal is by the tenant.

2. Facts of the case are as follows:

The sole respondent-landlady filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears rent and damages against the appellant-tenant. The grounds for ejectment were bona fide requirement for accommodation, non-payment of rent from 3.5.1985 to 31,7.1986 and also for renovation and alteration of the suit premises as it was in the dilapidated condition. The tenant denied the title of the landlady and that he was in the arrears of rent. The tenant also denied that the suit premises was required for bonafide accommodation of the respondent and for renovation and alteration. The suit was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge, Chhindawara, but the decree was set aside by the First Appellate Court. The second appeal was carried to the High Court and by the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the Trial Court. That is how the parties are before us.

We have heard Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant-tenant and

Mr. K.M.K Nair, learned counsel for the respondent-landlady.

From the judgment of the Trial Court, we find that the tenant admitted in his evidence

the fact of taking the suit premises on rent and also accepted the respondent as his landlord. On these facts the Trial Court held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This finding has not been disturbed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court.

5. Regarding default in payment of rent it was averred that the tenant was in arrears of rent from May 3, 1985 to 31st of July, 1986 amounting to Rs.1493/- and the rent was Rs.100/- per month. The Trial Court from the evidence of the tenant and his son held that, as they could not say who paid the rent and for how many months, the tenant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1493/-. The First Appellate Court on the ground that the tenant deposited rent in the Appellate Court, held that he could not be treated defaulter of rent.

6. Under clause (a) of sub-section (I) of Section 12 of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act ), if a tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months from date on which notice of demand for arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord, eviction can be ordered. Admittedly, the tenant did not pay the arrears rent after receipt of the notice.

7. Sub-sections (1) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act which are relevant for our purpose and are quoted below:

"13(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 proceedings as the case may be.

13(5). if a tenant makes deposit or payment as required to sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) no decree or order shall be made by the Court for the recovery of possession of the accommodation on the ground of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1451

Cases Referred (3)