1. Eviction decree passed under Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act — Second Appeal filed by tenants — High Court directed payment of market rent for stay of eviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 208
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of M.P Principal Seat at Jabalpur)
K.M Joseph, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Heera Traders - Appellant
Versus
Kamla Jain - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s).5996-5997 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s).13834-13835 of 2021)
With
Pooja Collections - Appellant
Versus
Kamla Jain - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s).5998-5999 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C)No(s).14357-14358 of 2021)
Decided On : 22-02-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv. Mr. Inderjeet Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv. Mr. Inderjeet Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv.
Important Points
The tenant is not liable to deposit the time-barred arrears of rent, particularly having regard to the requirement in Section 12(1)(a) that the arrears of rent must be legally recoverable from the tenant. The expression, “the period for which the tenant may have made default”, as pointed out above, refers to the default under Section 12(1)(a).
Subject
Civil Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
Whether the tenant is obliged to pay time-barred rent under the first part of Section 13(1) of the Act. Whether the expression, “the period for which the tenant may have made default”, as pointed out above, refers to the default under Section 12(1)(a).
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were inducted as tenants of a nonresidential accommodation of 150 square feet for a monthly rent of Rs. 847/- in the year 1975. On 06.08.2009 the Respondent filed a suit under Section 12 (1) (a), (c), (f) and (h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). Apart from eviction the respondent also sought a decree for mesne profit. The trial court decreed the suit and ordered eviction under Section 12 (1) (f) and (h) of the Act. First Appeal filed by the appellant stood dismissed by judgment dated 25.03.2014. It is thereupon that the appellant filed a Second Appeal on 12.06.2014. He moved an application on 18.06.2014. An interim order against eviction was passed of stay from eviction. Thereafter the respondent filed an application for Appropriate Directions as Reply to the application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC. The court directed on 25.04.2016, the Rent Control Authority to submit a report regarding the prevailing market rate of accommodation in question making it clear that the calling of such report did not mean that a decision was taken on the question whether direction could be issued on the application filed by the respondent. On 16.09.2016 the Second Appeal came to be admitted. The interim order which was passed earlier came to be made absolute. The Rent Control Authority, it is alleged, without affording opportunity to the appellant, submitted a report which was prepared relying on the Panchnama of the Revenue Inspector. On 17.03.2020, the court proceeded to pass the impugned order directing the appellant to pay the mesne profit of Rs. 18000/- per month.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the tenant is not liable to deposit the time-barred arrears of rent, particularly having regard to the requirement in Section 12(1)(a) that the arrears of rent must be legally recoverable from the tenant. The court further held that the expression, “the period for which the tenant may have made default”, as pointed out above, refers to the default under Section 12(1)(a).
Issues: Whether the tenant is obliged to pay time-barred rent under the first part of Section 13(1) of the Act. Whether the expression, “the period for which the tenant may have made default”, as pointed out above, refers to the default under Section 12(1)(a).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant is not liable to deposit the time-barred arrears of rent, particularly having regard to the requirement in Section 12(1)(a) that the arrears of rent must be legally recoverable from the tenant. The court further held that the expression, “the period for which the tenant may have made default”, as pointed out above, refers to the default under Section 12(1)(a).
Final Decision: The court held that the tenant is not liable to deposit the time-barred arrears of rent, particularly having regard to the requirement in Section 12(1)(a) that the arrears of rent must be legally recoverable from the tenant. The court further held that the expression, “the period for which the tenant may have made default”, as pointed out above, refers to the default under Section 12(1)(a).
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 13 of the Act limits the Appellate Court's power to order payment of agreed rent only, overriding the principle of awarding mesne profits. (Para 4 , 7 , 53 )
3. Section 13 ensures rent payment but does not grant automatic stay; an eviction decree terminates tenancy status, rendering the occupant unauthorized regardless of pending appeals. (Para 15 , 19 , 20 , 28 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 63 )
4. An eviction decree terminates tenancy status; the Appellate Court may impose reasonable conditions, including mesne profits, for staying execution under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC. (Para 40 , 41 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 60 , 61 )
5. Appeals partly allowed — High Court order affirmed with modifications regarding the timeline for deposit and the monthly withdrawal limit for the landlord. (Para 66 , 68 , 69 , 70 )
6. Does Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act provide an automatic stay of an eviction decree?
No. Compliance with Section 13 by depositing rent allows a tenant to prosecute an appeal or avoid having their defence struck out, but it does not automatically stay the execution of an eviction decree. A stay must be sought separately under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 )
7. Does a person remain a tenant during an appeal after an eviction decree is passed?
No. Under Section 2(i) of the Act, a person against whom an eviction decree is passed ceases to be a tenant and becomes an unauthorized occupant. The reference to the person as a tenant in Section 13 during appeals is merely a legislative descriptive device. (Para 15 , 55 , 56 , 58 )
8. Can an Appellate Court order the payment of mesne profits instead of agreed rent as a condition for stay?
Yes. Since the occupant becomes an unauthorized occupant after the decree, the Appellate Court, exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, can impose reasonable terms, including payment of mesne profits or market rent, to compensate the landlord for the loss of possession. (Para 40 , 41 , 60 , 61 )
9. How does Section 13 apply to proceedings under Chapter IIIA for special category landlords?
Section 13 applies mutatis mutandis via Section 23H. Even where eviction is based on bonafide requirement rather than rent default, the tenant is obliged to deposit rent during the revision process to maintain the proceeding. (Para 22 , 25 , 35 , 36 )
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
1. The appeals raise certain common questions apart from the respondent being common. Hence the common judgment. By the impugned orders passed in these cases, the High Court while allowing the application filed by appellants under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and applications for an appropriate direction to the appellants to pay mesne profits along with the regular monthly rent and damages filed by respondent, directed that the appellants shall pay the rent of suit shops at the rate of Rs.18000/- per month to the respondent from the date of decree passed by the lower Appellate Court till the disposal of the Second Appeals. The appellants were directed to pay the entire arrears of rent within a period of 2 months failing which the interim order of protection from eviction under the decree was to stand vacated.
2. The Respondent is the landlady of the Appellants in both the appeals. In SLP (Civil) No. 14357-58 of 2021, the appellant was inducted as a tenant of a nonresidential accommodation of 150 square feet for a monthly rent of Rs. 847/- in the year 1975. On 06.08.2009 the Respondent filed a suit under Section 12 (1) (a), (c), (f) and (h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). Apart from eviction the respondent also sought a decree for mesne profit. The trial court decreed the suit and ordered eviction under Section 12 (1) (f) and (h) of the Act. First Appeal filed by the appellant stood dismissed by judgment dated 25.03.2014. It is thereupon that the appellant filed a Second Appeal on 12.06.2014. He moved an application on 18.06.2014. An interim order against eviction was passed of stay from eviction. Thereafter the respondent filed an application for Appropriate Directions as Reply to the application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC. The court directed on 25.04.2016, the Rent Control Authority to submit a report regarding the prevailing market rate of accommodation in question making it clear that the calling of such report did not mean that a decision was taken on the question whether direction could be issued on the application filed by the respondent. On 16.09.2016 the Second Appeal came to be admitted. The interim order which was passed earlier came to be made absolute. The Rent Control Authority, it is alleged, without affording opportunity to the appellant, submitted a report which was prepared relying on the Panchnama of the Revenue Inspector. On 17.03.2020, the court proceeded to pass the impugned order directing the appellant to pay the mesne profit of Rs. 18000/- per month. It was the case of the appellant that he came to know about the order when the respondent moved an application for executing the order dated 17.03.2020 and an application for recall filed by the appellant of the order dated 17.03.2020 came to be dismissed.
3. In the other appeal, the appellant was likewise inducted into a non-residential accommodation admeasuring 100 square feet on a monthly rent of Rs. 622/-. Otherwise by the order impugned the appellant has asked to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per month.
4. We heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Shrimati Shobha Menon and Shri Amit Sahni, learned Counsel for the Respondent. The contention raised by the appellant revolves around the proper interpretation to be placed on Section 13 of the Act. It is the complaint of the appellant that the High Court has not borne in mind that the present avatar of Section 13 was a product of a substitution effected in the year 1983. It is contended that the decisions of this court in Atma ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705 and State of Maharashtra v. M/s. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. , (2009) 9 SCC 772, which related to the Delhi Rent Control Act and the provisions relating to Rent Control in Bombay respectively would not apply. This is for the reason that the cases arising within the state of Madhya Pradesh m
