Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Shiv Dayal, C. J. , K. K. Dube, R. K. Tankha, M. L. Malik, J. P. Bajpai, Navkar and h. G. Mishra, JJ.
SHARADCHAND - Appellant
Versus
VISHNUPANT - Respondents
Second Appeal 687 Of 1977
Decided On : 01/14/1978
ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT - SECTION 13 - APPLICABILITY TO APPEALS - INTERPRETATION - FULL BENCH DECISION - DISTINGUISHED - VALUABLE RIGHT OF TENANT - PROTECTION.
Fact of the Case:
The issue before the court was whether Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (the Act) applies to appeals, and whether the Full Bench decision in S. S. Harishchandra Jain v. Indersingh Bedi, 1977 MP LJ 417 : (AIR 1977 Madh Pra 199) was no longer good law in view of the Supreme Court decision in Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopal modi, AIR 1977 SC 1217.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 13 of the Act does not apply, and no part of that section applies, to an appeal (whether the appeal be by the tenant or by the landlord). The court further held that the Full Bench decision in S. S. Harishchandra Jain v. Indersingh Bedi, (AIR 1977 Madh B 199) was correctly decided and continues to be good law. The court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopal Modi, AIR 1977 SC 1217, holding that the provisions of the Bihar Act, which were considered in that case, are different from those of the Madhya Pradesh Act.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 applies to appeals? 2. Whether the Full Bench decision in S. S. Harishchandra Jain v. Indersingh Bedi, 1977 MP LJ 417 : (AIR 1977 Madh Pra 199) was no longer good law in view of the Supreme Court decision in Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopal modi, AIR 1977 SC 1217?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 13 of the Act does not apply to appeals because: * The provisions of Section 13 are clear and unambiguous, and there is no indication that the Legislature intended for the section to apply to appeals. * The object of Section 13 is to put a check on unscrupulous tenants who would protract litigation without paying rent. This purpose is served in the suit itself, and there is no need to extend the application of the section to appeals. * To apply Section 13 to appeals would lead to absurd and unjust results. For example, a tenant who successfully defends a suit for eviction would be required to deposit rent in the appellate court, even though the landlord had no right to evict the tenant in the first place. The court also held that the Full Bench decision in S. S. Harishchandra Jain v. Indersingh Bedi, (AIR 1977 Madh B 199) was correctly decided and continues to be good law. The court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopal Modi, AIR 1977 SC 1217, holding that the provisions of the Bihar Act, which were considered in that case, are different from those of the Madhya Pradesh Act.
Final Decision: The court answered the question referred to it in the negative, holding that Section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, does not apply, and no part of that section applies, to an appeal (whether the appeal be by the tenant or by the landlord). The court further held that the law was correctly laid down in Harishchandra's case and it continues to be so because their lordships' decision in Radha Kishan v. Gopal Modi, AIR 1977 SC 1217 is clearly distinguishable, the provisions of the Bihar Act being different from those of the madhya Pradesh Act.
( 1 ) WHEN this second appeal was placed before a learned single Judge for admission, he passed the following order:-" the appeal is admitted for hearing on the following questions:-
(1) (a) There being non-compliance with Section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in the trial court as well as in the first appellate Court, that first appeal also being by the plaintiff-landlord, was Section 13 (6) of the Act attracted in both the Courts below? (b) For the same reason, was the plaintiff entitled to a decree on the ground contained in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act?
( 2 ) IS the Full Bench decision in S. S. Harishchandra Jain v. Indersingh bedi, 1977 MP LJ 417 : (AIR 1977 Madh Pra 199) no longer good law in view of the Supreme Court decision in Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopal modi, AIR 1977 SC 1217. Issue notice to the other side for a date to be fixed in the office. B. P. F. within a week. The aforesaid question No. 2, arising for decision in the appeal, has naturally to be decided by a larger Bench in view of the fact that the correctness of the Full Bench decision in S. S. Harishchandra Jain v. Indarsingh Bedi, (AIR 1977 Madh B 199) has been challenged. The papers be, therefore, laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Benchfor decision of the said question No. 2 after the respondents are duly served. " as Harishachandra's case (supra) was decided by Full Bench of five judges, this Bench was constituted to reconsider the correctness of that decision. In Harishchandra's case it was held that Section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) does not apply and no part of that section applies, to an appeal, whether the appeal be by the tenant or by the landlord. It was further held that the Full Bench decision reported in Ratandhand Firm v. Rajendra kumar, 1969 MP LJ 672: (AIR 1970 Madh Pra 1) did not lay down correct law. Section 13 of the Act enacts as follows:-
"when tenant can get benefit of protection against eviction- (1) On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in section 12, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court to pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. (2) If, in any suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Court shall fix a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation to be deposited or paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-sec. (1) till the decision of the suit or appeal. (3) If, in any proceeding referred to in Subsection (1), there is any dispute as to the person, or persons to whom the rent is payable, the Court may direct the tenant to deposit with the Court the amount payable by him under Sub-section (1)or Sub-section (2) and in such a case, no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit until the Court decides the dispute and makes an order for payment of the same. (4) If the Court is satisfied that any dispute referred to in Sub-section (3) has been raised by a tenant for reasons which are false or frivolous, the Court may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the suit.
(5) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), mo decree or order shall be made by the Court for the recovery of possession of the accommodation on the ground of de
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
