important point
Provisions of section 13(6) has nothing to do with the provisions of Section 12(3) or Section 13(5)

judgment

P.P. Naolekar, J. —

1.The brief facts material for the decision of this case are that Gopal Das (respondent herein) was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises on the monthly rent of Rs.350/- w.e.f. 14.12.1973. As the respondent was not paying the rent of the suit premises regularly and was defaulter, a notice demanding arrears of rent was issued by the landlord on 28.6.1975. Despite the service of notice, the respondent did not pay the rent within two months from the service of notice and, therefore, the landlord filed a civil suit being Suit No. 75A/1979 for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises on the ground of Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) (i.e. default in payment of rent) and on the ground of Section 12(1)(b) (i.e. sub-letting) and later on, by amendment, on the ground of Section 12(1)(f) (i.e. bonafide necessity of the accommodation for non-residential purposes). On institution of the suit, the respondent deposited the rent within one month of the service of writ of summon of the court on him. The suit was decreed by the trial court on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act. With regard to the default, the trial court found as under:

“14.Issue No. 9 is decided against defendant, hence rent of Rs.2800/- from 13.12.74 to 12.8.75, mesne profits 237/- and interest 161/- as per agreement total Rs.3198.00 are due of the plaintiff on the defendant and he is entitled to get the above amount, I give such finding.

15.Though, the defendant did not pay rent within two months after receipt of notice, but he raised dispute of rent under section 13(2) of the Act which was not decided. As such the defendant has deposited all the upto date amount, hence I give finding that defendant has not paid or deposited all the arrears of rent within two months from receipt of notice but deposited during pendency of suit. Therefore, the defendant will get benefit of Section 13(5) and Section 12(3) and the plaintiff is not entitled to get decree under section 12(1)(a) of the Act.”

Thus, the respondent was given benefit under Section 12(3) of the Act. The respondent preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 27A/1980 challenging the decree for ejectment on the ground of bonafide need. It would be pertinent to note that the landlord did not prefer any appeal or file any cross-objection challenging the refusal of decree on the ground of arrears of rent. The first appellate court confirmed the decree passed by the trial court. The respondent preferred a second appeal being Second Appeal No.47/1982. The second appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed by the High Court and the suit of the landlord on the ground of bonafide need was dismissed as premature. While allowing the appeal of the respondent, the High Court observed: “No decree for ejectment on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act could have been passed against the Appellant, because he had, admittedly, complied with the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act.” Against the said judgment and decree of the High Court, the landlord filed a special leave petition in this Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, the then landlord Lakshmi Chand expired and his legal representatives (appellants herein) were brought on record. The special leave petition was converted into Civil Appeal No. 3931/1986. During the pendency of the aforementioned proceedings, since the respondent had not deposited the rent or paid it to the landlord, the appellants served a notice dated 27.2.1991 upon the respondent demanding arrears of rent intimating him that he had committed a default in payment of rent due from 13.12.1984 to 13.2.1991. The said notice was served on the respondent on 5.3.1991. Despite the service of notice of demand for arrears of rent, the respondent did not pay the rent within two months of the service. The appellants/landlord filed a second suit being Suit No. 78A/19