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).

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 mus