SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(MP) 26

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Shiv Dayal, C. J. , K. K. Dube, M. L. Malik, C. P. Sen and J. P. Bajpai, JJ.
MANKUNWAR BAI - Appellant
Versus
SUNDERLAL JAIN - Respondents
Second Appeal 372 Of 1972
Decided On : 02/14/1978

Advocates Appeared:
K.M.AGRAWAL, P.C.Naik

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (MP) – Ss. 13 (1) & 12 (1) (a)–meaning of the word 'default' in section 13 (1)–is the same as in section 12 (1) (a)–tenant need not deposit time barred rent.

       Under first part of sub-section (1) of section 13, the period for which the tenant has to deposit the arrears of rent is "the period for which the tenant may have made default". The word "default" necessarily refers to the default described in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12.

       The expression "the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable" necessarily exclude the arrears which had become barred by time. It is incontestable that if on receipt of the notice of demand under clause (a) the tenant makes payment of the whole of the arrears of rent, which are within limitation, the landlord will not be entitled to bring a suit on ground (a). In other words, although the tenant may omit to pay or may even refuse to pay time barred rent and if he specifically makes payment of rent, which is within time, ground (a) will not be available to the landlord, because the tenant's liability would disappear as soon as he pays the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within the prescribed time. It is in that context that section 13 (1) requires the tenant to pay arrears of rent for the period of default. 1966 JLJ 1028 relied on.

       (Para 8)

       The tenant is not obliged to deposit time barred rent under section 13 (1) or 13 (2) of the Act. AIR 1976 SC 1637 relied on. 1978 (1) SCC 44 distinguished.

       (Para 17)

       (2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (MP) – S. 12 (3), Proviso – import of.

       After having availed of the benefit of section 12 (3) once, the tenant can afford to commit default in payment of rent for two consecutive months only, but not three. If he does so, the landlord will be free to give him notice and in case of nonpayment of rent within the next two months, he is assured of a decree for eviction in his suit to be instituted. And in such a case, even if the tenant deposits all arrears of rent under the first part of section 13 (1) arid also goes on depositing regularly rent for the current month, even then, a decree will be passed against him. This is the effect of the proviso to section 12 (3).

       (Para 15)

SHIV DAYAL, C. J.

( 1 ) ONE of us (Bajpai, J.) had referred the following question for being decided by a larger Bench:-" whether in compliance with the requirement of Sub-section (1) of section 13, is it necessary for the defendant-tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit in Court the amount of arrears of rent, the recovery of which has become barred by limitation and which the landlord-plaintiff on his part cannot recover by process in the Court? " a bench of three Judges heard the reference and by unanimous opinion dated nov. 19, 1977 (reported in AIR 1978 Madh Pra 54 (FB)) answered the question in the negative. It was held:--

"the tenant is not obliged to deposit time-barred rent under the first part of Section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. " thereafter, when this Second Appeal was placed before the Single Bench, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in khadi Gram Udyog Trust v. Shri Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir, Civil Appeal no. 1313 of 1977, D/- 28-11-1977 : (reported in AIR 1978 SC 287 ). It was urged for the appellants that the Supreme Court decision runs counter to the opinion of the Full Bench of this Court. The Single Bench then referred the following question for being answered by a larger Bench:-"whether, in the light of the observations made by the Supreme court in the case of Khadi Gram Udyog Trust v. Shri Ram Chandraji virajman Mandir (AIR 1978 SC 287), the opinion of the larger Bench given on 19-11-1977 : (reported in AIR 1978 Madh Pra 54 (FB)) in this appeal, cannot hold the field and the tenant-defendant is bound to deposit even the time barred arrears of rent in compliance with the provisions of Section 13 (11 and (2) of the M. P. Accommodation control Act. 1961 ?"

( 2 ) THE question then came before this larger Bench.

( 3 ) SECTION 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) Imposes restrictions on eviction of tenants even when tenancy is determined under the general law. This section bars a suit for eviction of a tenant notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, except on one or more of the grounds E (a) to (p) contained in Subsection (1 ). For the purposes of the present question and for facilitating the discussion. suffice to reproduce three of them:--"12. Restriction on eviction of tenants.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for Ms eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :-- (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manners (b) x x x x (c) x x x: x (d) x x x x required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned: (f) x x x x (g) x x x x (h) that the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or rebuilding or alterations cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated; x X X X (2) x x x x (3) No order for the eviction of a tenant shall be made on the ground specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Section 13 : provided that no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit under this subsection, if, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any accommodation, he again makes a default in the payment of rent



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top