Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Bishambhar Dayal, C. J. and Shiv Dayal, J.
JIVRAMBHAI - Appellant
Versus
AMARSINGH - Respondents
Civil Revn. 719 Of 1971
Decided On : 04/28/1972
The operation of section 13 (1) commences as soon as the defendant is served with the writ of summons of the suit based on any ground under section 12. Section 13 (1), section 13 (6) and section 12 (3) are co-related with one another. Section 12 (3) bestows upon the tenant salutary and overriding protection, if he strictly complies with the requirements of section 13 in which case, no decree for eviction can be passed against him, although he may have incurred the liability of eviction under section 12 (1) (a). But, if he does not strictly comply with the requirements of either of the two parts of section 13 (1), upto the end of the trial, he loses that special protection which he would have earned under section 12 (3). Further, any non-compliance with the requirements of either part of section 13 (1) may bring about the penal consequence of his defence being struck out under section 13 (6). The two consequences are distinct and independent of each other. 1967 JLJ 859 & 1966 JLJ 1028 relied on. [Para 7]
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S. 13 (2) - dispute under - no limitation prescribed - dispute raised by defendant - Court bound to decide and fix provisional rent -consequences of raising such dispute.
There is no time limit prescribed within which a dispute can be raised under sub-section (2). However, since the first part of section 13 (1) begins to operate no sooner than the writ of summons is served on the defendant and it requires the tenant to deposit arrears of rent within one month thereof, he must either (a) raise in the dispute within that one month; or (b) if be raises the dispute after one month, deposit the arrears of rent within one month as requires by the first part of section 13 (1) and also deposit rent as required by tae second part of that section, upto the date of raising the dispute.
As soon as a dispute under section 13 (2) is raised, it is the duty of the trial Court to determine reasonable provisional rent forthwith, if, in its opinion, there is before it sufficient material for that purpose. Otherwise, it must fix a very early date and call upon the parties to produce prima facie evidence supported by affidavits on the date so fixed and then, after considering such evidence as may be produced by the parties, determine the reasonable provisional rent forthwith. As far as possible, the provisional rent should be fixed before the next payment under section 13 (1) becomes due.
Since section 13 (1) is controlled by section 13 (2), it follows that as soon as a dispute under section 13 (2) is raised and it is brought to the notice of the Court, the operation of section 13 (1) is arrested so far as the amount to be deposited is concerned and it remains in suspense until provisional rent is fixed. 1970 JLJ 782 relied on. 1970 JLJ 1016 and 1969 JLJ SN 69 referred to. [Para 8]
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) - Ss. 13 (2) & 13 (6) - rent not deposited by defendant of or the dispute under section 13 (2) raised - defence cannot be struck out on this ground.
When provisional rent is required to be fixed under section 13 (2), it is from the date of such fixation that the defendant's liability to deposit rent under section 13 (1) begins, which is apart from the liability of the defendant to deposit rent before the dispute under section 13 (2) is raised.
The defence cannot struck out on the ground that the defendant has not deposited the monthly rent after he raised the dispute under section 13 (2). [Para 10]
( 1 ) THIS revision is from an order passed by the First Additional District Judge, raipur. striking out the defence under Section 13 (6) of the M. P. Accommodation control Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act ).
( 2 ) FACTS material for this revision are these: equivalent Citation:
(a) The suit from which this revision arises was instituted on 3-9-1968 by the respondent against the petitioners, for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent (Civil Suit No. 10-A of 1969 ). In this suit, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 1,600/- as arrears of rent from June 1, 1968 to July 31, 1968 at the date of Rs. 800/- per month. The grounds of ejectment under Section 12 of the Act were more than one including the ground under Section 12 (1) (a) on the averment that the defendants did not pay arrears of rent within the statutory period after receipt of the demand notice from the plaintiff. On 23-9-1968 the writ of summons was served on the defendants. On 15-10-1968, they applied for time to file written statement, which was granted by the Court. On 23-11-1968 a written statement was filed, in which the suit was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that by an order dated 3-4-1954 the Rent Controlling authorities had fixed Rs. 200/- per month as the fair rent of the suit premises. Before us stress was laid on provisions contained in Section 7 (1) and Section 6 (1) of the present Accommodation Control Act of 1961.
(b) In the meanwhile, on 31-10-1968 the plaintiff bad made an application under Section 13 (6) of the Act for directing the defendants to deposit all arrears of rent and alternatively, to strike out his defence. It may be noted that by this time, no written statement had been filed so that there was no question of striking out the defence on that date. This application remained pending. On 1-2-1969, the defendants filed their reply to the plaintiff's application under Section 13 (6 ). On 5-91969, the trial Court passed the following order :-" it is, therefore, ordered that the defendants shall deposit the arrears of Rs. 1600/- and the arrears at the same rate till the filing of the written statement within a month from today. For the time spent after the institution of the suit he would continue depositing the rent of the current month on the 15th of each succeeding month and he shall also along with that deposit Rupees 400/- towards the arrears and go on depositing till the decision of the suit by the 15th of every month. The arrears of Rs. 1600/- ,and those till the filing of the written statement shall be deposited on or before the 6th October and then continue to deposit the rent and Rs. 400/- from the arrears from 15th November, 1969 onwards. " it is obvious enough that this order was passed by the trial Court on the first part of the plaintiff's application dated 31-10-1968, and since it gave the defendants time to deposit the arrears of rent, the alternative prayer of the plaintiff for striking out the defence stood rejected.
(c) On 31-1-1970, the plaintiff filed another application under Section 13 equivalent Citation: (6) of the Act, alleging that the defendants did not comply with the order dated 5-9-1969. By this time the defendants had deposited Rs. 12,400/-on 9 different dates. On 3-2-1970, the defendants filed their reply to the plaintiff's application. On 10-2-1970, the trial Court passed an order striking out the defence. On 19-8-1970, the defendants filed a revision from that order (Civil Revision No. 261 of 1970), which was decided on 15-7-1970, remanding the case for a fresh decision after hearing both the parties.
(d) In the meantime during the pendency of the abovesaid Civil Revision in this Court the defendants had filed an application in the trial Court on 28-4-1970 under Section 13 (2) of the Act for fixing a reasonable provisional rent. In this long application, the defendants repeated their case as stated in the written statement saying what they had been paying as rent from time to time; alleging that
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
